Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon.
Members will know by now, I think, that I have selected certain Amendments. The list is published and it is available
to hon. Members. Sir Cyril Osborne.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.)

Anyone who indulges in activities tending to promote
acts of homosexuality between consenting adults through the
publication of lists of names and addresses of known
homosexuals, or otherwise, shall be guilty of a criminal
offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for
a term of five years or to a fine of
£5,000.—[Sir C. Osborne.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a
Second time.
I beg the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker, because I have
never done this before and I feel a little nervous about it. I
wonder if you would allow me for a moment to remind the House
of the condition of our country as the background for my
objection to the Bill and my wish to strengthen it.
The criminal statistics issued last year—a new lot are
due—show that, over the last 30 years, the number of
crimes known to the police has increased from 283,000 to
1,192,000—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I
apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early, but we
cannot discuss the general state of crime in the country or
the Bill itself on this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman must
talk about his new Clause.

Sir C. Osborne: I am 
much obliged for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In my Clause, I 
embody a new principle of punishment in that I suggest that, 
instead of men being sent automatically to prison if they are 
convicted, the courts should have the option to fine them, a 
maximum in this case of £5,000. I thought that it was 
germane to my point to consider the state of the country from 
that point of view, and whether it is wise automatically to
send men to prison for committing this type of offence. I hope
that you will allow me to develop this, because I think that
it is wrong to send men to prison automatically without the
courts having the option of an alternative punishment.
I am glad to see the Home Secretary present this morning,
because he will know the name of Sir Alec Paterson, the great
prison reformer. After the first war, I served and worked with
Alec Paterson in the Toc H movement and became a prison
visitor. For many years I was a regular visitor at Leicester
Prison. The one thing that Alec Paterson taught me above all
others was that a man should never be sent to prison on a
first offence if it could be helped, that the threat of prison
should be kept over his head to deter him, but that, wherever
possible, he should never be sent to prison on his first
conviction. That was the experience which I gained from a man
who is acknowledged to be the greatest prison reformer of the
modern age.
I am supported in my plea by the statistics recently published
by the Home Office on the state of our prisons. I should have
thought that it was germane to my argument to consider the
state of our prisons today, where the Bill proposes to send
men if they are found guilty of this type of offence. The
daily average population in our prisons has risen from 29,000
in 1964 to 35,000 at the present time, and the Home Office say
that, by the end of the year, it will have reached 39,000.
That is an alarming figure, and it seems crazy to propose in
the Bill to send more men to an already overcrowded prison
system.
The Home Secretary's Report also says that the annual prison
intake is now 90,000, most of whom are short-term, quick-
turnover prisoners, the very type that Alec Paterson taught me
all those


years ago should never be sent to prison. That is what I want to avoid, if I possibly can.
The House knows that the Home Secretary is doing his best to improve the situation in our prisons by new buildings and new facilities, but the Home Office itself has agreed that, in three years, the increase in crime will be so great that even the new facilities which the Home Secretary is providing will not be adequate to meet the demand. It is against that danger that I am protesting and arguing that men should not automatically be sent to prison. The Home Secretary will know from his own figures that two out of every three offenders are sentenced to less than six months. To increase that number by sending to prison men who are found guilty of homosexual acts under this Bill seems mad beyond words.
It has been recommended by a group of reformers that one step towards keeping short-term prisoners out of prison altogether is to increase the severity of fines. I understand that this is to be incorporated in the new legislation now before Parliament. I am proposing that we should do it in this Bill now, and that is why I suggest that we should include the alternative punishment of a fine.
What worries me so much is the publication of lists of possible and willing homosexuals. The Home Secretary may say that this danger does not exist. I do not believe it. I am certain that it exists, and I believe that this Bill will make homosexual practices more respectable, giving them, as it were, the approval of the Government and will tend to increase them just among the students and young men who are most subject to the dangers. I am, therefore, very frightened, and that is why I wish to make a serious punishable offence the publication of lists of men who are willing to indulge in these exercises.
If it is in order—I trust that it is—I shall now refer to a new Clause which appeared on yesterday's Notice Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the co-father of the Bill. That new Clause has now been withdrawn, but it is germane to what I am trying to argue. It would provide that
it shall not be an offence"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his new Clause, we cannot discuss it on the new Clause now before the House.

Sir C. Osborne: It is the idea behind it that I am trying to discuss, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend should discuss his own Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I do not wish in any way to cramp debate, but debate must be in order. The hon. Gentleman is moving the Second Reading of new Clause No. 2.

Sir C. Osborne: It is against the background of the dangers that I am recommending this new Clause, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to show what the dangers are. One of those dangers was shown by the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend which appeared on yesterday's Notice Paper. Surely, I am entitled to show that. I want only one phrase from it,
…it shall not be an offence"—
I ask the House to note the words, "not be an offence"—
to conspire to commit or to aid, abet, counsel, procure"—
and "procure" has a nasty dirty smell about it—
command or attempt the commission of a homosexual act…
There are people in this country who do not believe that it is a crime to do those things, and the evidence was on the Notice Paper only yesterday. It is against that that my soul revolts—that they can procure and encourage men to do it, and, what was more alarming—no wonder that my hon. Friend has withdrawn the Clause—there was no limit of age in it at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to take notice of the Chair. He must speak to his new Clause.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I feel very deeply on this matter. In support of what I am saying, I had many letters in my post this morning, and I ask your indulgence in allowing me to read just one. It came from a doctor—I am prepared to give his name to the Home


Secretary, though, obviously, I should not give it now—and this is what he wrote:
Just a line to wish you success in your efforts to get Leo Abse's Bill for spreading filth chucked out tomorrow".

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not in order.

Sir C. Osborne: Is it not?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman must abide by the rules of the House. He will have various opportunities to make various objections to various parts of the Bill and to the Bill as a whole at various stages, but he must now link what he has to say to the specific new Clause before the House. He knows that this is so.

Sir C. Osborne: I did say at the outset that I have never done this before and I am quite new to it.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: After 22 years.

Sir C. Osborne: I have never moved a new Clause before.
11.15 a.m.
Since I cannot say more, I commend the new Clause to the House. It is senseless automatically to send men to prison for committing this type of crime. It is madness to send them when the prisons are already overcrowded. It is never too early to state the truth. The Home Office has told us that there are 9,000 men in prison at present living two or, more likely, three in a cell designed for only one. To send more men to prison in these conditions would be the height of folly. This is why I urge that the new Clause be adopted and that the courts be given power to impose a fine of up to £5,000. I hope that I shall have the support of my hon. Friends.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: In the course of 17 years in the House, I have never before addressed myself to any issue concerned with homosexuality or with prison reform. I have regarded these matters from a Parliamentary point of view as very much outside my Parliamentary interests. But this is no reason why I should not have strong views on both aspects of the matter to which my hon. Friend the

Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has addressed himself.
I support the new Clause because, at the last General Election, in March, 1966, contesting a constituency which I had not previously contested though I had lived in it for 15 years or more, I was extremely surprised to find that at public meetings, many of the 60 public meetings I addressed in that General Election campaign, I was being questioned on my attitude to this odious topic of homosexuality. I declared myself as being trenchantly against Wolfenden, and I am, therefore, in favour of this Clause.
First, I wish to say something about prisons. Again, I have no special knowledge of prisons. I was a strong supporter of my then right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, now Lord Butler, in all he tried to do during his years at the Home Office in prison reform matters and in combating the rise of serious crime, notably crimes of violence, all of which led me to a casual interest—[Interruption.]—Does the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) wish to intervene? I readily give way to him if he does. On the other hand, if he is to remain seated, perhaps he will not interrupt me from a sedentary position.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Do not be so pompous.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wish to intervene?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, and temper does no good.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful for your support, Mr. Speaker. I have strong views in this matter. I have already declared very truthfully, honestly and candidly that I have never attempted to address myself before to this odious topic in the House of Commons. Now I feel constrained to do so because of the number of representations made to me by my constituents, and I shall not be interrupted frivolously or trivially—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Clause.

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am merely putting in his correct place the hon. Member for Walton. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wishes to intervene he must seek to do so by rising.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Heffer: Get on with it.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Heifer: I was intervening because of an unwarranted attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman).

Mr. Speaker: An intervention must be Parliamentary.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to you for your protection, Mr. Speaker, and I am delighted to silence the hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not provoke further interruption. He must get on to the new Clause.

Sir G. Nabarro: I now turn to the question of conditions in our prisons, which are a cause of grave concern today. Crime is increasing. The number of men sentenced to prison is increasing. Overcrowding in prisons is not being abated. I therefore strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in saying that any man or woman with a social conscience should always support the view that a man should not be sent to prison, especially in the early stages of offences, and that prison sentences should be avoided as largely as possible.
In my judgment the alternative of a stiff fine is a very valid and good one. I do not pretend to know whether a maximum fine of £5,000 is correct; it may be that £1,000 is the correct figure. That question can be dealt with by Amendment at a later stage. What I am sure of is that the principle of the new Clause, namely, that a stiff fine should be substituted as largely as possible for a prison sentence, is a good suggestion, and one that ought to command majority support in the House.
I now touch upon a very delicate matter within the compass of the Clause. The most serious aspect of overcrowding in prisons is the incentive that it gives to buggery and homosexuality. No hon.

Member could deny that. Clause 3 provides that:
The maximum punishment which may be imposed on conviction on indictment of a man for buggery with another man of or over the age of sixteen shall
and then the subsection continues with the details of the sentence. It is this aspect that troubles me very deeply. Overcrowding in prisons is indubitably an incentive to this class of sexual offence. That is why I intervene to ask, seriously and sincerely, that the Home Secretary should accept the principle that fines are always preferable to prison sentences. This is what my hon. Friends and I are endeavouring to do by way of the new Clause.
I apologise for having been involved in controversy with hon. Members opposite at this early stage, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that I have intervened only because I have long held sincere and deep convictions on this issue, although I have never attempted to speak on it before. This morning, therefore, I speak in the House with the greatest deference and timidity, in this context.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The reason why I have put my name to the proposed new Clause is, first, that I believe—whatever anyone may say to the contrary —that people who indulge in this filthy business do not confine it to themselves but are great proselytisers, and are always trying to attract other people, especially other younger men, into this filthy business. Last week I appeared on a B.B.C.2 programme, and anyone who saw it will remember the statement by the man who said that he regularly comes to public lavatories in London to pick up other men. If the Bill goes through, unless something is done to deal with those who seek to put one in touch with another, some enterprising person will extend the activities in which he is already indulging.
I want to quote to the House from a magazine which contains some rather interesting advertisements. The magazine circulates at this moment. One advertisement says:
Are you a gay bachelor, interested in male only activities? I am forming a social club in London. Send stamped addressed envelope for details. Cosy lodgings with meals available.


That is only one of a number of such advertisements appearing in this magazine.
We might say that there was not too much to worry about if this magazine had a private circulation among certain people, who had to make some sort of application in order to receive it, but this is not the case. I received the magazine from a constituent, and in his letter to me he said that he had received it completely unsolicited. This is obviously the sort of thing which has a wide circulation.
Most of the advertisements in the magazine deal with advertisements for normal heterosexual activities, although some of those are rather peculiar. I am trying to show that even at this moment, when the homosexual act is illegal, organisations exist which feel completely free to put this sort of advertisement into a booklet which does not have a limited circulation but is sent, unsolicited, to people all over the country. My constituent was naturally incensed that this sort of publication should have been sent to him.
It may be that the publication itself is in breach of the law, and after this debate I shall send it to the Home Secretary to ask his advice whether it is allowed by law. But the important thing is that we should be certain that this sort of activity is not indulged in if the Bill comes into force.
The second method of advertising these practices is by way of the advertisement panels which are usually seen outside newsagents' shops. I must admit that in the recent past many of those have disappeared, but they have not completely disappeared. One has only to go to the area just off Piccadilly Circus to see the type of advertisement panel which seeks to advertise all sorts of practices—[Interruption.]

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, will you please appeal to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) not to conduct their conversation in such loud voices as to prevent me from hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) is saying?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no difficulty in hearing the hon. Member, in spite of the conversation, but if conversations are conducted in the House, they ought to be very quiet.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Mawby: Very few people complain about being unable to listen to my speeches. I appreciate, however, that the committee meeting is still continuing.
I was talking about advertisement panels, which to some extent have disappeared, but there is one very prominent one just off Piccadilly Circus which seeks to put people in touch with one another. Clause 5 is the only one which I can see which would catch that type of person, for living either wholly or partly on immoral earnings, the earnings by prostitution of another man. But even that Clause refers to a person who "knowingly" lives wholly or in part on such earnings and presumably the people responsible for these hoardings feel satisfied that they could prove to the courts' satisfaction that they did know that by accepting that type of advertisement they were living partly on the earnings of prostitution. Nevertheless, one has only to read the type of advertisement there and to see the group of men surrounding the panel day and night to know exactly what the situation is.
I do not want to see those panels enabled to proliferate and used mainly for putting homosexuals in touch with one another. Whatever we may say, the general public consider this an abomination, so much so that they are not prepared to talk about it and cannot understand why others do. Many of my constituents ask me why Parliament should be so obsessed with this subject. I will not pursue that any further, lest I get out of order.
Certainly, whatever line we may take about leading public opinion, we must also accept that in large part we should mirror public opinion as well. If not, we shall go so far in front that the general public will start electing other leaders. This is terribly important—

Dr. Hugh Gray: What evidence has the hon. Member of public opinion? My impression is precisely the reverse: I believe that public opinion is strongly behind this Measure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are interested in public opinion at the moment only as it relates to this Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: I do not want to be drawn to stray out of order as I nearly did a few moment ago.
There are different opinions among hon. Members about whether the Bill is good or bad, but, if we are to have it, the new Clause is essential, as we must ensure that any new activities do not impinge upon the public consciousness, in other words that the public should be protected from any great upsurge. I would say to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) that I have no evidence to suggest that there will be a big upsurge, but on the other hand he has none to suggest that there will not be. The Clause is therefore necessary to the Bill if it is to be passed, and I support it.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I rise only because I fear that there is a danger of the debate becoming ragged. The new Clause has a point which is worth discussing, although I will couch my speech interrogatively, because I am not sure that I know the answer.
The Clause is concerned with the so-called directory of addresses, which is well known to be part of the apparatus of professional prostitution, certainly in female cases and, I would suppose, also in male cases. What is the status of the directory in law if the Bill is passed in its present form? Is this new Clause necessary to prevent the directory? I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department present, because my recollection is—he will correct me if I am wrong—that there was a case in recent years dealing with a female directory of this kind in which it was held to be an illegal activity, although I cannot remember why.
It obviously was not a brothel, and I should not have thought that it would be obscene to publish a number of names and addresses. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what the situation is as regards such a directory under the present law and the extent to which the new Clause would improve the Bill? This is an important point and one which deserves consideration. I ask simply for the Government's view, with their able team of advisers, on this position.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Before I come to the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I will deal with what has already been said. We share of course the aim of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), supported by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), to keep people out of prison, but the new Clause will not have that effect, and may result in sending more people to gaol whom no one would wish to see there.
On fines, the Clause is not clear whether this is to be an indictable or a summary offence, but if the former, there is no need to specify fines because they can be imposed without limit on any indictable offence.
I must advise the House that the meaning of the Clause is not clear and that it might well have consequences which are unintended and undesirable. It refers to anyone
…who indulges in activities tending to promote acts of homosexuality …through …publication …or otherwise …
This wording is wide and vague enough to cover any activity which might bring homosexuals together—

Sir C. Osborne: That is the intention.

Mr. Taverne: It might, therefore, result in the owner of a club where several homosexuals happened to meet being considered to be "indulging" in activities "tending" to the promotion of homosexual acts or, what is worse, might make illegal the activities of bona fide organisations set up to assist homosexuals to overcome their problems. It could, therefore, easily have directly the opposite effect to what I am sure the hon. Gentleman intends. I cannot advise the House to accept the new Clause, which would have unfortunate effects.
On the question of the publication of lists, I understand that the law in relation to homosexual lists would be the same as for lists of prostitutes. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: there was the "Ladies' Directory" case recently, which was based, I believe, on an offence of a conspiracy to corrupt public morals. The basis was not all that clear to everyone and it seems to be an example of judge-made law. Certainly the House of


Lords decision has laid down an offence which would cover the publication of lists.
In general, I would say to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that the question of conspiracy to commit moral offences is a difficult one, and the Criminal Law Revision Committee is at present looking at it.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), in 22 years I have never spoken on this subject. However, a few days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) showed me the magazine to which he has referred and, as a result, I wish to say a few words about this Clause.
I recognise that Lord Butler and the present Home Secretary are both very enlightened men who have done a great deal to improve conditions in prisons and worked hard in the cause of criminal reform. But I am alarmed about this situation. In correspondence which I have received from constituents, only two have given any measure of support to the Bill, whereas I can say quite honestly that there are thousands who take the opposite view.
When my hon. Friend showed me the magazine—and I do not know its circulation—he said that he proposed to send it to the Home Secretary. I hope that he will do so, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say what he proposes to do about it. If such publications are freely circulated, I am quite certain that young men will become involved. I do not care what grown men do together in their own homes. That is their business. But I am concerned about the youth of the country.
The problem does not arise solely from this sort of magazine. One frequently sees cleverly worded advertisements in the personal columns of leading newspapers which are designed to bring men together.
I have the impression that the Under-Secretary of State agrees that there is substance in the Amendment—

Mr. Taverne: Mr. Taverne indicated dissent.

Sir A. V. Harvey: At any rate, I thought that he implied that—

Mr. Taverne: I am sorry if I misled the House. I thought I said that the mischief aimed at, in so far as there might be publication of lists, is already covered by the "Ladies Directory" case, and I also said that the substance of the Clause would have the undesirable effect of dealing with people who were bringing homosexuals together even though there was no intention of committing homosexual acts.

11.45 p.m.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the support of the House, he must go out of his way to meet what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is trying to do. I agree that Parliament has to give a lead, but the question arises how far that lead should go. With all the expertise available to the Home Secretary, I should have thought that some assurance could be given. However, we have not had that assurance.
I am not happy about the situation, otherwise I should not have intervened in this debate. As I say, I have not spoken on this subject before, but I am alarmed at what may happen as the years go by. We are here to protect our young people. I recognise that we may be behind European countries in some respects. By all means, let us catch up with them, but let us have some safeguard for our young people. It is imperative that Members of Parliament should do that, and I hope that, by means of this Clause, we shall bring it about.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and to the House for not being present when the Clause was introduced. It is a good Clause, so far as it goes.
It is no answer for the Home Office to say that this sort of activity will be covered by the "Ladies' Directory" case, because that case had to go to the House of Lords before the facts were decided. I should not like that to happen under this Bill, should it become law.
I also disagree with the Home Office when it is suggested that those who run institutions for the care and correction of this type of offender might find themselves affected by the provisions of the Clause. One thing which that type of place does not do is to publish the names


and addresses of those whom it is treating. Quite rightly, the first element is secrecy. Therefore, I must cross swords with the Under-Secretary of State about that statement.
The Clause seeks to remove one part of the commercial element of this practice, be it desirable or undesirable. If I went further into that subject, Mr. Speaker, you would be quite right in calling me to order. It deals with the activities of those who seek to make money out of the vices of others, and it covers all forms of sexual vice.
Do not let us shut our eyes to such matters. They exist, and there is money in them. To attract people together in order to make the money, it is necessary to advertise where such services can be obtained. If the Bill passes into law without this Clause, it may be that we shall encourage commercial vice. I hope sincerely that the House will decide to incorporate the Clause in the Bill. It will prevent ordinary citizens being offended by seeing advertisements of the kind which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has read out and having lists sent to them of addresses where such services can be obtained.
I hope that those promoting the Bill will look carefully at the facts and allow the Clause to be added to the Bill.

Sir Frank Pearson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), I have not taken any very close interest in this type of legislation in the past. However, since the Bill passed through its Committee stage, there has been a rising wave of apprehension about the form in which it is proceeding on its legislative path.
I welcome this opportunity of giving the fullest support to the new Clause. However, the Under-Secretary of State appears to have missed the main heart of the matter, which is that in a subject such as the one we are dealing with in this Bill it is vital that legislation should contain provisions which will check the course of those who set out to exploit the weaknesses of their fellow men. Already in this debate we have had sufficient evidence, particularly that quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), that there are people who set out with a commercial end in view to exploit these very weak-

nesses. I ask the Under-Secretary to agree in principle that the dangers inherent in the Bill as it is at present drafted are such that some Clause is necessary to check the activities of such people.
Reading through the opening Clauses of the Bill this morning, I was extremely shocked and disturbed with the whole atmosphere that it conjures up. If proof were necessary that a provision of this nature should be incorporated in the Bill, I would direct attention to the first Clause. The promoters of the Bill have found it necessary to put in a specific provision dealing with those who perform these acts in public lavatories. That immediately brings the House face to face with the subject matter with which we are dealing—the weaknesses and sordidity that surrounds this subject. In this connection, it is interesting to note the provision in Clause 1(3) which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now debate the other parts of the Bill.

Sir Frank Pearson: I was trying to show that the atmosphere surrounding this subject is such that the promoters of the Bill must carefully consider the need to provide a provision in terms analogous to the new Clause.
It has been found necessary to produce a provision which protects the severely abnormal. What about the others; those who are not severely abnormal but are, nevertheless, abnormal? Should not they receive this protection? What about the mentally ill and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resist the temptation to debate other parts of the Bill. He must confine his remarks to the new Clause.

Sir Frank Pearson: Having tried to give the background against which we are operating, I will, Mr. Speaker, come to the new Clause.
The question of the publication of lists for the propagation of sexual acts has been mentioned, but this is only part of the matter. There are one hundred and one other processes which could be exploited commercially if the Bill is passed in its present form. Perhaps the case referred to, about the publication of lists, would merely come under a charge of living on immoral earnings, but that is


an extremely vague and difficult case to prove. Something far more specific is necessary.
Reference has been made to Clause 5, although here again the sanctions are ill defined and not of sufficient strength to prevent the difficulties which many of my hon. Friends rightly envisage as flowing from the Bill from occurring. It may be said that the fine of £5,000 mentioned in the new Clause is excessive. Considering the money that is to be obtained in London through vice—gaming clubs and all the other paraphernalia—I do not believe that £5,000 would be an unjustified fine in this case.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider the genuine and basic implications of the new Clause. Our proposal has nothing to do with whether or not one accepts the principle of the Bill. Perhaps the homosexual act should never have been made illegal. Whatever one's views about that, it is a different matter when one comes to reverse the law, particularly in the moral atmosphere existing in the country to-day. If the promoters of the Bill are to carry out the duties which rest on their shoulders, they must tackle the question of dealing with those who set out commercially to exploit the homosexual act. I urge the Under-Secretary to think again.

Mr. James Dance: Most people in Britain have found the Bill to be distasteful. I believe that most of them would find it even more distasteful when they realise the necessity of tabling a new Clause of this kind. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) proved the necessity of having this provision. He mentioned the publication of lists. I wonder if he has the date of publication of the list to which he referred. I presume that it was published recently and that it is still in circulation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) mentioned that the "Ladies Directory" was in existence for some time before it was finally suppressed, and even then the case had to go to the House of Lords. Although the Under-Secretary said that documents of this kind would be suppressed in any case, under a different section of the law, how long must we wait for that to happen and how much

damage will be done in the meantime to young people?
If lists of this kind are published I can see an appalling opening for blackmail. Someone may read one of these advertisements or lists and make an appointment. Nothing may take place, but the mere fact that the man or boy has replied to the advertisement or has appeared at the address given in the advertisement may enable the person who inserted the advertisement to say, "If you give me a certain sum of money I will not take the matter further"—not that the money would prevent him from going to the police, since I do not believe that even in the past that was the side of blackmail which was so dangerous, but that it would prevent him from going to his victim's employer or commanding officer.
These types of list could lead to appalling blackmail. It is, therefore, right to have a new Clause of this type, to ensure that the matter is specifically defined. Otherwise these lists may go on being published, doing damage until they are finally suppressed by the law. Only by acting now will we ensure that this type of prosecution will be quicker and more effective.
Like my hon. Friends, I was dissatisfied with the Under-Secretary's comment. He did not give serious consideration to the importance of the new Clause. I urge him to consider the matter again. This is an extremely serious issue which may easily involve a new form of blackmail.

Mr. Ian Percival: Like several of my hon. Friends, this is the first time that I have spoken in the House in any debate on this subject. Having followed with interest what has been said on this matter, I have done my best to comprehend what the promoters of the Bill have in mind in this legislation. However, this is the first time I have spoken on the subject and I speak now for two reasons: first, because I urge on the House in general, and the Under-Secretary in particular, to accept that we are discussing a vitally important point, and, secondly, because although the reasoning of that point has been made by my hon. Friends, it appears to have made no impression on the Under-Secretary.
Instead, the Home Office has merely given a short answer which we are supposed to accept. I know of only one way in which hon. Members can show their strength of feeling, and that is for those of us who feel strongly about the subject to say so. That is why I rise, despite the strong and convincing speeches of my hon. Friends; and I will try to avoid repeating what they have said.
The Under-Secretary gave two reasons why the new Clause was not desirable. The first was because it was too wide. He gave two reasons for that. The first is that it might catch the promoter of the club who catered for homosexuals. I hope to goodness that it would. If it did that, it is a further good reason for having the new Clause. The second category of those of whom he spoke, those who seek to help homosexuals, is a different matter altogether. But for the Under-Secretary to say something that even by implication suggests that a man who opens a club in order to bring together people for the purpose of buggery —and that is what the Bill deals with—merely demonstrates the necessity of the new Clause—

12 noon.

Mr. Taverne: I did not say that one was not concerned with the homosexual club. I said there could be cases in which those who promoted clubs in which there were homosexuals, and in which homosexuals came together, even though there was not the intention of the commission of homosexual acts, might be prosecuted.

Mr. Percival: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad to be able to infer from what he has said that he would like to see the case to which I was referring be the subject of criminal prosecution—

Mr. Taverne: Mr. Taverne indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: The hon. and learned Gentleman shows his disagreement, so I do not know what difference his intervention makes. He appears to indicate that he dissents from my proposition that a person running a club designed to bring homosexuals together should not be subject to prosecution. I say that he should be subject to prosecution, and if the Bill does not make that an offence it is a thoroughly bad Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-port (Mr. Percival) cannot be saying that a club for homosexuals for social purposes should be prosecuted. It should be prosecuted only if it exists to promote sexual relations, which is quite a different point.

Mr. Percival: These niceties do nothing to put my mind at rest. Any hon. Member who is prepared to face the reality knows quite well that there are plenty of people in this country who will open a club for the purpose of making money out of the misfortunes of others—and I now put the basis of homosexual acts on the most charitable footing and refer to making money out of the weaknesses of others. There will be people who will set up clubs for that purpose, and it is closing one's eyes to reality to say that these things will not happen.
The House has seen this kind of thing enough to know that it must be provided against, and I think that it would be a great deal more to the credit of the promoters of the Bill if they would face the facts and say, "We want to protect the poor misguided person who is just messing about in private but not doing any great harm, but we want just as much as anyone else to stop the man who seeks to make money out of depravity, weakness and disgusting conduct."
I do not think that the Under-Secretary's correction of what I said matters in the slightest, because he went on to disagree that even the case I was talking about should be stopped but, as a matter of courtesy, I will deal with the question.
Club proprietors must in future be very careful to see that they do nothing tending to promote acts of homosexuality. It is that with which the Clause deals. There is only one way to make them careful, and that is to create an offence. Everyone will then know the position. The courts know how to distinguish the person who is promoting this sort of thing from the person who has had it merely foisted on him. It is a problem with which the courts are well conversant. But we should make certain of catching the person who should be caught.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's second argument, namely, that it might


catch those charitable bodies which exist to help the weak is ludicrous—quite ludicrous—and I do not think that I need say any more about it—

Sir G. Nabarro: Oh, yes—do go on.

Mr. Percival: I will not say much more, because I think it is so ludicrous. The point is that the courts are well able to distinguish between the person who would be committing an offence under this Clause and the person charitably helping the weak.
What bothers me is that a point of law was just shrugged off on the basis that the House of Lords case, the name of which escapes me for the moment, would cover this aspect, but it would not. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) raised the question, and I am much obliged to him for having done so as it gave us the opportunity to hear the answer and to consider it. Having considered both question and answer, the answer seems to me to be wholly unsatisfactory.
That case was decided on the grounds that what was done there was something which had a tendency to corrupt public morals. What we are talking about now is something done to promote homosexual activities, which would not be an offence because of the provisions of the Bill. How could they possibly be described as being something tending to corrupt public morals? If Parliament one day says, "It is all right. It can be done in private between consenting adults", and then someone publishes a list of those coming within that category, how can that be said to be tending to corrupt public morals? Parliament would have just said, if not expressly then by implication, that it did not corrupt public morals so it could be done. It is a very bad argument.
The position is clear, but even if it is not quite as clear as I think, I say without hesitation that, at the lowest, it must be extremely doubtful whether the Bill would touch the activities referred to in the new Clause at all. That being so, we must not leave the position so vague, and I should be much more impressed, and much more liable to pay attention to the promoters of the Bill, if they were to say that they were willing to recognise this plain and obvious fact.
It is not good enough to say that they will rely on a House of Lords decision about something quite different, which involves considerations that we can see are quite different, and which any lawyer can say is plainly distinguishable. We should not rely on such a tenuous possibility when we have a simple opportunity of putting in the Bill what we want, and making it clear from the word "go" that it will be an offence—and, what is more, a serious offence—to indulge in the activity of bringing together these people.
I owe it to the House to say why I regard this as being so important—I think that this was the thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) had in mind, and I seek to profit from your guidance to him, Mr. Speaker. When talking about stopping something by making it a criminal offence it is necessary to pause and consider what one is trying to stop. For that purpose, one must bear in mind that what one is stopping here is the promoting of homosexual activities. It is necessary to remember what homosexual activities are. Under this Bill, homosexual activities include what has for centuries been called the abominable offence of buggery. The more I see of the progress of the Bill, the more I wonder whether the promoters really know what it is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going outside my Ruling. He must come back into order.

Mr. Percival: I am not seeking to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but seeking your advice on where I am out of order. The point I am seeking to make, and its relevance, is that if one were seeking to prevent someone treading on a fly, that is one thing, or if one were attempting to stop someone taking another person's handkerchief, that is another matter, but if one is seeking to prevent someone promoting buggery it is quite another matter. That is the relevance of the importance of making a new criminal offence. If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me, but I have nearly done on this.
Every jury which is directed by a judge is told in simple terms what that offence is, because people do not know what it is and they will not ask about


it. I would tell this House what it is if it were not for the fact that there are young people in the Gallery. The reason why I will not tell the House what it is when there are young people in the Gallery is that that one offence is so utterly disgusting and degrading that I do not wish to give details of it in public, here or anywhere else. Let nobody be in any doubt, however, on that offence, which comes within the category of homosexuality, of the disgusting nature of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These statements would be in order at some other stage of the Bill, but not on the new Clause.

Mr. Percival: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that my last sentence would bring me back within your purview and, I hope, pleasure.
Considerations of that sort make me believe that it is vital to stop people who are willing to make money out of promoting those activities. It is because some of those activities are so degrading and disgusting that we must stop them. The new Clause offers the way of doing it on a perfectly simple, fair basis. Unless the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept even this, I for one shall regard all their actions hereafter with the gravest suspicion.

Mr. John Farr: I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has said. He has contributed a great deal to our short discusion on the new Clause. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that if he feels that the House should know all the facts at which he hinted, he has only to spy strangers and get the Galleries cleared, and then continue with his speech.
I wish particularly to refer to the interjection by the Under-Scretary of State. It is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to have grasped the purpose of the Clause. We were delighted to see his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary present for a short time at the beginning of this debate, and as the Under-Secretary appears to have a very strange view of the purpose behind the Clause, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will return before we terminate discussion on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) referred to the dan-

gers of blackmail in connection with the Clause. While that danger is one of which many hon. Members, on both sides, take full cognisance, we have to remember that there is a flaw in the argument. If the act of homosexuality becomes a recognised and acceptable act, as some would seek to have it through this wretched Bill, the response to the threat of blackmail by those concerned will not be as ready and as quick as it is today when this offence is still without the law.
Other hon. Members have referred to the correspondence which they have received from constituents. I know that Parliament is supposed to be a path-maker and an opinion-maker and to lead the way in these and other matters. Nevertheless, it is not right or proper that Members of Parliament should consistently disregard the advice which they receive from constituents, on this or any other topic.
I can say quite truthfully that I have not received one letter in support of the Bill but I have had many against it from my constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot, on the new Clause, discuss the attitude of himself or the public to the Bill in general. There will be other opportunities for that.

Mr. Farr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance.
It seems to me that the Clause seeks to curtail the spread of this specific act of homosexuality. Surely, hon. Members, on both sides of the House of Commons, should support the new Clause on that ground alone. We do not wish to encourage the spread of this wrongful practice. Surely, it is our duty to seek to curtail it, as would the Clause put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
12.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks to the possibility of the contamination of prisoners who are put into prison as a result of an offence committed under the Bill and come into contact with other prisoners. There are very few prisons with single-cell facilities for prisoners. The other day, I had the opportunity of going round what is, perhaps, our newest prison, in my constituency at Gartree, in Leicestershire, which houses 400 or 450 prisoners, who enjoy


single-cell facilities. It is one of our very few prisons where prisoners do not have to share a cell with other prisoners. They are, therefore, not quite as liable to contamination from homosexuals on that account.
The real drawback at Gartree, however, as at other prisons, is that there is not sufficient work for the prisoners to do. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening, because I have written to one of his colleagues on this matter. Out of 130 prisoners in one cell block, there is work for only one-third of them. There is no work for the others, who are free to intermingle in their cell block during working hours with literally nothing to do.

Sir A. V. Harvey: A holiday.

Mr. Farr: Exactly, It is in conditions of that sort, whether prisoners have to share a cell or not, that a disease—I call it that advisedly—such as homosexuality could flourish.
This is a matter which should concern every hon. Member in whose constituency there is a prison. If an ordinary person meets a homosexual in the course of a social life, the ordinary person can go elsewhere, but a prisoner cannot. He is confined within the prison walls. He may be unfortunate enough to be confined within the cell block and even more unfortunate in being confined to the occupancy of the same cell as a homosexual.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth concerning the desirability of introducing a fine as an alternative to imprisonment is worthy of the deepest consideration by those who are responsible for promoting the Bill, in the hope that they will seek to include it in this Measure.
I should like to know from the Under-Secretary what consultations the promoters of the Bill have had with his advisers on this topic. Have they consulted the prison authorities concerning the penalties listed in Clause 3? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman also inform the. House whether, if the Bill is enacted without this worthy new Clause, prisoners who are committed as a result of an offence committed under Clause 3 will be sent to special prisons for housing that type of sufferer or will be spread among the various prisons?
I wholeheartedly support the new Clause. Simply because a man has made a mistake and enters prison for an offence of some kind is no reason why we should wash our hands of him. We should take cognisance of the social conditions under which he has to live and the inmates of the prisons who will come flocking in if the new Clause is not accepted. If the Bill proceeds further, the new Clause should be part of it.

Sir Cyril Black: I hope that the Under-Secretary will be willing to add something to the rather inadequate information which he has so far given to the House. My attitude to the Clause might well be determined one way or the other according to the nature of the further information which I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be willing to give.
I think that there is common agreement in all parts of the House that the kind of advertisements to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) are deplorable and that some means should be found of preventing such advertisements from appearing and of preventing such circulars from being distributed. I gather that we are on common ground in believing that there is an evil here. Although we may be grateful, as I am, to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for having brought this particular advertisement to the notice of the House, hon. Members are aware that this is not some singular and exceptional and unique case. We are dealing here with something which is commonplace, which is widespread, and which has been going on for years. It has tended to increase recently, but we are dealing with something which is not novel and which is not new and which is not an isolated case, but which represents a serious evil of large dimensions and of long duration.
The answer given by the Under-Secretary was that this kind of case can already be dealt with under the decision in the "Ladies' Directory" case in the House of Lords. That is the Home Office's answer to the fears which have been expressed this morning about these advertisements. I want to ask the Under-Secretary four questions.
First, what was the date of the House of Lords decision in the "Ladies Directory" case? My recollection is that it


was certainly several years ago. It is not a recent case. The case was heard in the House of Lords a considerable time ago. If we could be told at least the year in which the judgment was given, it would be helpful for the purpose of my next question.
Secondly, if the evil of the advertisement to which reference has been made can be dealt with in view of the decision in the "Ladies' Directory" case, how many proceedings have already been taken on the strength of the "Ladies' Directory" case; and what has been the result of those proceedings? Have people been convicted, and have penalties been imposed?
Thirdly, some of us in the House at any rate are of opinion that, if the Bill becomes an Act, it is likely to lead to a great increase in the kind of advertisements and the kind of solicitings to which reference has been made. What proposals of a constructive nature has the Home Office got for dealing with this evil which already exists and which is likely to become much more extensive if the Bill becomes an Act?
Fourthly, and lastly, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can help me as a layman. Most of those who have spoken so far are members of the legal profession. I ask my final question out of my ignorance. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the reason for it. If we are right in thinking that the "Ladies' Directory" case covers this situation and that prosecutions can be brought in respect of such advertisements, can private persons initiate such proceedings if the official authorities are unwilling to move?

Mr. Richard Sharples: As the promoter of the Bill knows, I have been a supporter of the Bill, for reasons which I need not go into now. In fact, I should be out of order if I were to attempt to do so now. However, I was profoundly disturbed by the Under-Secretary's reply to a question which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). The hon. and learned Gentleman has completely failed to understand the importance of the Clause and the principle lying behind it. I accept the criticisms he makes of the drafting. Those of us who want to see the law liberalised in many respects

believe that the Home Office spokesman has completely failed to grasp the dangers which there are in the proselytising of homosexuality. Many of us want to see the offence itself abolished on the lines put forward in the Wolfenden Report, but we have fears about the young and those who are on the verge of taking up an activity of this kind being drawn into the net.
The Under-Secretary based his rejection of the principle of the Clause on two grounds. He said, first, that the case would be covered by the decision in the "Ladies' Directory" case. I am not a lawyer, but I very much dispute that opinion. The "Ladies' Directory" was not a simple list of prostitutes. It was a booklet containing invitations, veiled though they might have been, to every sort and kind of vice. As I recall it, the decision was on those grounds and not on the ground that this was simply a list of prostitutes. I believe, for reasons which have been advanced from this side, notably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), that, if the Home Office is basing its rejection of the Clause on those grounds, the grounds are wholly false.
The second ground upon which the Under-Secretary based his rejection of the principle of the Clause was that these were matters which would be examined by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. We have no idea how long it will take for the Committee to make its report, nor do we have any undertaking from the Home Office as to when it will seek Parliamentary time to implement the decisions of the Committee.
The Home Office has completely underestimated the possibilities that there are the moment that the Bill becomes an Act of the circularisation of people who may be on the verge of taking up homosexual practices but resisting them and of young people. I beg the Under-Secretary to think again about this. I realise that he would not be able to advise the House to accept the Clause, for the reasons he has already given. But I believe that the Home Office should give much more serious consideration than we have been led to believe has been given from the ground advanced for rejecting the principle lying behind the Clause. As a supporter of the Bill


I shall not vote against the Clause on the evidence which we have so far heard.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: As one of the sponsors of the Bill, if I believed that it would be possible under the Bill for lists of the kind described in the new Clause to be published, and that they would tend to promote acts of homosexuality, and if I thought there were no provisions in the Bill to deal with that, I would share all the indignation which has rightly been expressed at the possibility of commercial exploitation in any form of people who, as has been said, are unfortunate.
Certainly, too, if I felt that there was any danger in the Bill of people being able to exploit young people in particular, in the manner envisaged by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I would share the apprehensions of hon. Members who have spoken. But I do not believe that it would be possible under the law after the passage of this Bill in its present form for such lists with such intentions to be published without attracting heavy penalties.
I noticed that there was some diffidence in the latter part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who could not recall the name of the case—it was the Shaw casein 1962, and to which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) rightly drew attention. I think it would be wise, before the alarms are sounded, if we were to refresh our memories. In that case there was a binding decision, a decision which now is beyond a doubt. It was found that there was a conspiracy to corrupt public morals, precisely because there were in the "Ladies' Directory" advertisements which sought to induce readers to reply to the said advertisements for the purposes of fornication and taking part in or witnessing immoral acts and exhibitions, raising and creating in their minds inordinate and lustful desires.
Precisely because the liberty of the subject was so affected and because of the suggestion that such a publication could be regarded as a criminal conspiracy, it went to the House of Lords. But it is significant that when it reached that place there was a majority decision

—by such people as Lord Simonds, Lord Tucker and Lord Hodson—who laid it down that the common law misdemeanour to corrupt public morals existed, that it is indictable, and if it is calculated to cause public injury certainly it is a serious offence.
The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the law now suggests that homosexuality in certain circumstances is no longer an offence. May I point out that the act of prostitution is not a criminal offence. In fact, the conspiracy which was referred to, namely, of publishing invitations to indulge with prostitutes, is not in itself an offence. The fact is that this material was published with a view to inducing people to indulge in this lewd practice.

Mr. Hogg: I ask this question to elicit information and not to put the hon. Member in a difficulty. Indeed, I am profoundly grateful to him for dealing with this matter rather less perfunctorily than did the Minister. How far does the hon. Gentleman consider that this decision of the House of Lords—this is the problem with which I am concerned —precludes the publication of lists confined to prostitution which may be acts of fornication between individuals in private, and how far does the reasoning depend upon the fact that the contents of the "Ladies' Directory" included acts of flagellation and acts of demonstration before audiences? It is this point which gives both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) cause for doubt.

Mr. Abse: I am strengthened in my view by the fact that there was a dissenting judgment which is of great significance in this context. Lord Reid, in his dissenting judgment, said that he could not go as far as the other judges on the question of inducing people to participate in sexual acts with prostitutes, exhibitions and so on. This is, in fact, the weakest aspect of the case. He said that he was of the opinion that although there was no general offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, a public invitation to indulge in sexual perversion constituted the common law misdemeanour of an outrage on public decency and that, therefore, the conspiracy charged, so far as it related to an invitation to resort to certain forms of


perversion, was indictable as a conspiracy to commit a crime. The dissenting judgment deals specifically with the question of perversion and, therefore, even though this is the weakest part of the case, I am satisfied that the publication of lists of this kind, which I abhor as much as anyone, can effectively be dealt with under that case.
I would go further. I should like to draw attention to the fact that there are other provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) with fairness drew attention to Clause 5, although he considered that it was too weak. He saw with perspicacity that if somebody was making money out of something which resulted in a form of male prostitution, it is possible and highly probable that it would be brought within Clause 5. There is, however, something which has not yet been mentioned, and I should like to direct attention to Clause 4. Subsection (1) of that Clause relates specifically to the offence of procuring others to commit homosexual acts and this attracts a penalty of two years' imprisonment.
Therefore, whilst I appreciate the concern and alarm of hon. Members, I believe that those who are genuinely concerned should be reassured by the very terms of the Bill in so far as there are many ways in which it would be possible for the police to take action if anybody thought that he could take advantage of the existing change in the law to publish iniquitous lists of the kind that we have in mind.

Mr. Percival: I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Member. Indeed, I am obliged to him for the care and detail with which he has dealt with the matter. He has raised a number of very interesting questions, particularly whether what is envisaged would be regarded as procuring under Clause 4—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Percival: I am merely trying to shorten my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with this? In the course of his speech he has posed a number of very interesting questions. He has also given the answers, although I think he concedes that there may be other answers. But surely when we have a very interesting situation like this, if one wants to be

sure, should not one take the simple course of making sure in the Bill? Is not that the simple way out?

Mr. Abse: As sure as a lawyer ever can be about a Clause—and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there are always hazards—I believe that, as the law stands and as it will be under this Bill, his apprehensions are groundless.

Mr. Mawby: We understand that the judgment the hon. Gentleman read out hinged upon the question of perversion. Is he satisfied that the courts in future, if this Bill were passed, would still take the same attitude towards this type of perversion?

Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to say anything but "Yes". I do so genuinely because there is no question of any suggestion that this Bill means that homosexual acts cease to be an offence. It is only in very special circumstances that they cease to be an offence under the Bill.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, and the House may be surprised that I should seek to intervene in a debate like this, representing as I do a constituency like Nantwich. In the green fields of Nantwich these acts are not a daily occurrence. Nor are they discussed daily. But I feel that since I have received, despite this, a number of letters, all of them opposed to the Bill, I should take the opportunity to say that at any rate in our part of the country there is the utmost opposition to the Bill and support for this new Clause.
My constituents know, from their experiences in visiting the neighbouring metropolis of Manchester, that there is a great deal to be said—indeed, everything to be said—for the Clause to be accepted. Those of us who go about the West End of London and look occasionally in the windows where lists of this and that are publicly shown—people wanting domestic help or flats or something of that kind—know that there in many instances people are trying to promote homosexuality. I have watched the types of people who go and read these notices. It is not too difficult to see what lies behind them.
The very cogent and excellent speeches which have been made on behalf of the Clause ought to receive greater attention from the Joint Under-Secretary of State


and from the sponsors of the Bill than they seem to be receiving. I cannot help but comment that as far as I can see—and I may be wrong—few sponsors of the Bill have taken the trouble to come here today and listen to the arguments about this Clause and to refute them. Surely the Bill's promoters, if they are as serious as they purport to be, should be here in greater numbers to speak on such an important new Clause as this. When I see the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir E. Rawlinson) amongst those names, I am quite sure that, if he were here, he would want to say something about this matter.
12.45 p.m.
It is really disappointing that this does not seem to be taken seriously enough by the promoters of the Bill for them to speak against the Clause. We have heard practically nothing of any importance against the Clause. Yet speech after speech has been made on its behalf by people who have studied this matter very thoughtfully. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who does not give us the benefit of his oratory as much as I would like, pleaded the case in a thoughtful and excellent speech, but I suppose that the degree of excellence can be judged by the amount of rising by opponents of the Clause to the questions that my hon. and learned Friend was putting. But what he was saying was nevertheless of great effect.
I have no hesitation in saying that I shall support the Clause. I would willingly accept an assurance, however, that the Home Office will look at this again and perhaps produce something to meet the matter. This could easily be done in another place. But if we accept the situation as it is we shall all live deeply to regret it.
I speak as one who has not been playing a great part in the proceedings of the Bill. Indeed, I have felt that, on the whole, something of the nature of the Bill was desirable. But to do it the way in which it is being done, and to turn down this Clause in its entirety, is something that we should all live to regret.

Sir C. Osborne: We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance and indulgence. We have transgressed

and you have brought us back nicely to the paths of rectitude. Until the last few speeches, I feared that the supporters of the Bill were going to remain remarkably silent. We heard nothing from them until we had been discussing the Clause for one hour and 20 minutes. I have never heard the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who is such a good speaker, remain so silent for so long on a subject on which he is such an expert. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who supports him, never uttered a word, which was remarkable. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and to the hon. Member for Pontypool, as supporters of the Bill, for having something to say, as it were, in its defence and against the Clause.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State gave us a very poor, short and curt reply. It was not the reasoned answer to which we were entitled. It was rather discourteous of the Home Secretary—who I know is a very busy man—just to walk in here for five minutes and then leave and not even listen to a very important discussion. It would have been more courteous of him to stay and listen.
The core of the Clause is that those who indulge in activities tending to promote acts of homosexuality should be punished. I do not think that any hon. Member, whether in favour of or against the Bill, would suggest that men who indulge in promoting this kind of activity would do so for love. They do it for money—a lot of money.
If ever there was filthy lucre this is where it is in our hag-ridden London today. It is the filthiest of filthy lucre against which I am protesting—and all we get is a curt answer from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the back of the Home Secretary and just one speech from a sponsor of the Bill who very kindly gives us from his great knowledge cases from the past. But it is those who make money out of this filthy game that I want to punish. [Interruption.] I do not think it is a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) says that it is. I would go to Nelson and Colne and see if his people think that it is a laughing matter.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: When we consider how many


enormous fortunes that have been made and will continue to be made out of porongraphy generally, I repeat that this particular aspect of this particular matter is a laughing matter.

Sir C. Osborne: That other people wickedly make money in an evil way does not take away from the wickedness of this. I would like the hon. Gentleman to fight a by-election on returning to Lancashire and saying that it is a laughing matter that men make money out of the weakness and evil of their fellow men.
That is what makes me so angry at the promoters of the Bill. They take the things I hold as sacred and dear and think that they are laughing matters. I do not. It revolts me. I pass this point on to the hon. Member for Pontypool. Last weekend I re-read part of the history of Europe by a great English liberal historian. In the third chapter on the fall of Rome he said that the things we are now discussing formed one of the causes of the breakdown of that civilisation. That was not a laughing matter.

Mr. Speaker: I must guide the hon. Gentleman back into the debate.

Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was tempted.
This is a matter of procuring and publishing lists. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) read only one. Perhaps I may read just one more. I have one here listed as G.80 in the publication. It says:
Likeable young man, 28, would like to meet executives having premises in West End. Available mid-day, evenings "—
he cannot be very hard working and producing much economically—
Give address, phone number. All answered.
Does not the hon. Member for Pontypool agree that this is the type of thing we should stamp out if possible? If it is circulated it gets from hand to hand, and what is to prevent its being sent among young people and young men? It is the kind of thing that leads to social evils and is tending to corrupt our national life. I was asking in the Clause that men who indulge in it should be punished.
The Under-Secretary told me that the result of my proposal would be to send more people to prison. He did not say how. I do not believe it; I do not

accept his bald, terse statement. Whitehall knows best, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not accept that. How does he know that my proposal would send more men to prison?
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Clause was not clear and was too wide. This is my drafting and I am not a Parliamentary draftsman. If the Parliamentary draftsmen can put my intentions into better words, I shall readily accept them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend now saying to the Treasury Bench that he seeks an assurance that if he and I and other hon. Members withdrew the Clause it would undertake to find a form of words to give effect to the same objectives and introduce it in another place? If so, would he demand an answer on that point?

Sir C. Osborne: I know that a Minister can give us an answer but that we cannot demand the answer we require. You have at least taught me that. Mr. Speaker.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the Clause would punish people who ran clubs that incidentally brought homos together. Punishment is deserved by any association that brings homos together and encourages these acts that I think are repulsive. I read all the debates on the subject in the past two years last weekend and I did not find one hon. Member who defended the practice of homosexuality. Everybody said that it was a degrading and disgusting habit. Therefore, if a club incidentally or partially operates so as to bring homos together and encourage this degrading and demoralising activity, I say that it should be punished. The Clause wants that to be done, but the Home Office says, "No", and on this we shall have to oppose it.
I should like to know what assurance the Under-Secretary can give the House. The core of my objection is that if these lists go out—

Mr. Dance: In relation to that publication, would my hon. Friend agree that as it took a long time before the "Ladies Directory" was taken away, something must be done to deter people from using that sort of document, and that five years'


imprisonment or a £5,000 fine would be a deterrent?

Sir C. Osborne: That is what I am asking should be done. I am an amateur at drawing up new Clauses. I do not mind if the Home Secretary puts my intentions into his words, as long as I get my way.
What proposal has the Home Office in mind to prevent this type of thing being circulated among youths aged 16 to 21? Would people who circulated it be punishable? I hope that the Home Secretary regards it as an objectionable form of activity. It is not an economic activity that will increase the gross national product very much. A maximum punishment of a term of imprisonment and a £5,000 fine is not nearly too high for this kind of procuring. When it is remembered how much money is being earned in London today tax-free by all kinds of vice, fines of £5,000 do not seem too much but too little. I beg the Home Secretary not to oppose the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) said that this sort of thing could lead to greater blackmail. I believe that this is true. If such a list were found by one boy in the possession of another, or by one man in a factory in another's possession, it would be a source of blackmail. Hon. Members must realise that if homosexuality ceases to be a criminal offence it still remains a social offence, and men would be frightened of their activities being known to their families and would still be subject to blackmail.

Mr. Farr: Would my hon. Friend allow me?

Sir C. Osborne: Do not stop me again. All right.

Mr. Farr: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one precedes the other, and that whilst homosexuality may be a grave social offence today, if the Bill is enacted and it ceases to be a criminal offence it may not continue to be a social offence as it is at the moment?

Sir C. Osborne: I think that it will. This is far from the Clause—it is leading me away. I still think that it would be a social offence. I believe that blackmail would increase, and that it is one of the greatest social evils.
1.0 p.m.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said that clubs which brought homos together must be punished. The Under-Secretary made no reply to that. My hon. and learned Friend asked him whether he would make any provision in that respect, and he got no reply at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said—

Dr. David Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That the Question be now put—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in mid-sentence in the middle of a speech. Sir Cyril Osborne.

Hon. Members: Go on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) will continue his speech.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear; and a very good speech, too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir C. Osborne: It is a difficult one for me to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said that, whereas the Under-Secretary maintained that there was already provision in law to deal with this type of publication as a result of the "Ladies' Directory" case, it is some years since that case was heard in the courts. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when it was?

Mr. Taverne: The answer to that question was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). It was in 1962.

Sir C. Osborne: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary. How many prosecutions have taken place since then? None. The defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman puts up by calling that case in aid is valueless, because, in the last five years there have been no prosecutions—

Mr. Taverne: I cannot comment on that without making a second speech.

Sir C. Osborne: No supporter of the Bill has dealt with my plea to impose a fine instead of imprisonment. No one has taken into account the overcrowding of


our prisons and the foolishness of sending young men to prisons where there are already 9,000 inmates crowded together two and three to a single cell. No one has met my case on that. Not one single argument has been put forward against this most important point. If we have no better answers than that, when the time comes I shall have to ask the House to divide.

Dr. David Kerr: Dr. David Kerr rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question he now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Grant-Ferris: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of this Division, I observed an hon. Member going into the Aye Lobby

through the front door instead of one of the side doors or the rear door. Is it in order to record a vote from a Member who does not pass the Tellers in the correct direction to begin with?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that when the hon. Member went through past the Tellers you had not given the order for the doors to be locked. So far as I am aware, there is no rule against that. It is unusual, but there is no rule against it.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the point of order. It is unusual, but, provided the hon. Member has passed the Tellers at some stage in the ordinary way, the vote is all right.

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 23.

Division No. 386.]
AYES
[1.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Horner, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Albu, Austen
Howie, W.
Rankin, John


Allen, Scholefield
Huckfield, L.
Rees, Merlyn


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Barnes, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b"n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Bradley, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Judd, Frank
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, John (Reading)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lector, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dewar, Donald
Lyon, Alexander w. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dickens, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Teeling, Sir William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Waiden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Weitzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Winniok, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric
Yates, Victor


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)



Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.


Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Mawby, Ray


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Corfield, F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)



Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dance, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Sir Cyril Osborne.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

Orders of the Day — New Clause No. 3.—(CONSENT)

Consent to a homosexual act induced by the payment of money or a gift shall not be deemed to constitute consent for the purposes of this Act.—[Mr. Mawby.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mawby: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this proposed new Clause we can discuss new Clause No. 4— "Employers', &c, threats "—
Anyone who uses his position as an employer or superior to threaten dismissal or down-grading, &amp;c., in employment for the refusal to engage in homosexual practices shall be guilty of a criminal offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of five years or to a fine of £5,000.

The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 110.

Division No. 387.]
AYES
[1.15 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
English, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gurden, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Cary, Sir Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin



Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dance, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Doughty, Charles
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Sir Cyril Osborne.


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray





NOES


Abse, Leo
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Albu, Austen
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield
Horner, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Howie, W.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Huckfield, L.
Rees, Merlyn


Barnes, Michael
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Bidwell, Sydney
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Booth, Albert
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Boston, Terence
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Judd, Frank
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, H. p. G.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Lee, John (Reading)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Snow, Julian


Dell, Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dewar, Donald
MacColl, James
Taverne, Dick


Dickens, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Teeling, Sir William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valle)


Ellis, John
McNamara, J, Kevin
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, George


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foley, Maurice
Mikardo, Ian
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Moonman, Eric
Winnick, David


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)
Yates, Victor


Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Hamling, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Peter M. Jackson

Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 22.

Amendment No. 9, in line 21, after 'if', insert:
'he is himself suffering from such severe mental abnormality that he'.

Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 12, leave out from 'private' to end of line 14 and insert:
'but the burden of proving that the act was done with the consent of the parties and that each of the parties had attained the age of twenty-one years shall be upon the accused'.

Amendment No. 12, in line 12, after parties', insert:
'or that the consent was obtained under duress by virtue of the position of authority held by one over the other'.

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate will therefore cover a considerable area and my remarks may appear to be a little disjointed. I shall try to link them together and make certain that my views are made quite clear. The Clause refers to the payment of money or the presentation of a gift in a homosexual act. This is occasioned mainly because the Bill does not mention male prostitution. Clause 5 provides that no one shall knowingly wholly or partly live upon the earnings of a male prostitute, but there is no suggestion concerning a third person who may enjoy any monetary benefit arising from a sexual act of this sort. I would have thought that even the greatest humanitarian in the House would not want this state of affairs to continue if the Bill becomes an Act.
We have had many arguments about the age of consent. The promoters of the Bill take the view that the age of 21—the normal age of consent at which a person is expected to reach adulthood—should be the age over which two adults can, if they both consent, commit a sexual act together without any danger of their being hauled before the law.
Many young men over the age of 21—especially now, with a more universal university education—find themselves on the bottom rung of the ladder in industry or commerce, or even while still continuing their education. By virtue of circumstances they have to live at a level which cannot be considered luxurious. If one of those young men is suddenly entertained at a standard which he has never known or even hoped to know before, this could be one of the ways of sending him down this very tricky path. Once that young man has known the sort of entertainment and gifts and money which can be involved in this matter he can easily find himself in circumstances in which he would otherwise never have dreamed of allowing himself to be involved.
I am not specially concerned with older men who decide to resort together with each other in private; I am concerned with young men making their way in life. If the Bill is passed we must lean over backwards to make certain that our young men are given proper protection even against themselves and some of their baser motives. We should make it clear

that we are not prepared to support male prostitution of any description and not only that we shall make it an offence for someone to procure another person or to enjoy part of the earnings of any male prostitute, but that we do not accept male prostitution as a legal institution. That is the only way in which we can provide protection for our young men.
The other proposed new Clause and the Amendments which we are discussing deal with the question of the standing of one person to the other—whether the first is an employer or superior of the second. It is very important to make it clear that when we talk about consent we mean free consent, and that there shall be no duress involved in any consent given by either of the parties. If we are to satisfy ourselves that there is no duress we must make it clear that we shall turn our face against any employer or person in a superior position using that position to try to cause someone to commit a homosexual act.
We have all read of the sort of activities that used to go on in certain parts of Hollywood in the beginning of the cinema boom. Most of us have read of what was known as the "casting couch", upon which, it was said, prospective starlets had to accept that they had no possible future in the film undustry unless they were prepared to pay certain favours to the casting director or any of the other people superior to them.
I do not know how widespread this practice was, but there is evidence to show that it existed. I would hate the situation to arise in which there was any prospect of a casting couch coming into being for young men who wanted to enter or were on the threshold either of the film industry or any other industry. Therefore, it is important to make it clear that, if it is obvious that an employer or superior has used his position to try to debauch a young employee, the whole severity of the law will fall heavily upon him. This is covered by new Clause No. 4.
1.30 p.m.
The sponsor or the Under-Secretary may say that the wording is so wide as to hurt all sorts of people, but I will not go to the stake on any wording. I want to show how I, and, I think, many other people, feel; if the principle is accepted,


I will be pleased. We should accept that no employer should ever be allowed to use his authority to induce a young man to stray from the paths of righteousness. This is most important.
The next point is covered by my Amendment, No. 9, which deals with severe subnormality, where the person concerned in the original act would have to prove that he had no knowledge or reason to suspect that the other man was suffering from severe subnormality. The Amendment tries to be fair, providing that it shall also be a defence for the person concerned to show that he was in such a state of severe mental abnormality himself that he could not have known that the other person was suffering in the same way and that he also was incapable of knowing what he was doing. This would be a useful additional defence to such a person.
The sponsor and the Home Office may say that, in these circumstances, the man would never be brought to court, and, if so, my Amendment loses most of its point, but it is important that a person in this state should be able to plead this defence as well as prove that he had no knowledge that the other man was mentally abnormal.
Amendment No. 12 is covered by my earlier point, the most important of all —whether consent can be accepted as consent if obtained under duress by a superior or employer. One does not need to list the groups of people who are in these peculiar positions which might make them feel that duress could be put upon them. We know of many areas of society where groups of young men over 21 are likely to be in contact with and lower in rank than older men. We should make clear that, where there is any sign of those people using their superiority for this base purpose, the law will come down on their necks.

Mr. Percival: I would first ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had to leave the Chamber for a moment when the new Clause was called, but I understand that new Clause No. 3 is called and that new Clause No. 4, with Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are to be debated with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Except for Amendment No. 10, which I believe has

been withdrawn, the hon. and learned Member is correct.

Mr. Percival: Have you ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there will be separate Divisions on any?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They have not been selected for separate Divisions; there will be a Division only on new Clause No. 3.

Mr. Percival: Then this is a grouping of diverse matters relating to consent that is the heart and soul of the group. Therefore, everything relating to consent is relevant. It is on that basis that I propose to divide my remarks, because it is shorter to group one's remarks under the different elements of consent rather than to go solemnly over every Amendment.
There are four elements of consent. First is the question, what is consent? One cannot understand these matters without considering that. Second, consent to what? Third, consent by whom? Fourth, the burden of proving consent.
Although this is the time when one would prefer to be nourishing the inner man, I thought—I hope that the Bill's promoters will agree—that some important questions arise on this matter of consent. Although we pay tribute to the two hon. Gentlemen whose names are on the back of the Bill and who are also forgoing their lunch to be present, one cannot but regret that they are the only two of those whose names are on the back of the Bill who are here to listen to the views of those who think that there is something further to be considered. I hope that those two hon. Members will make up for all the others and perhaps convey these views to their colleagues or invite them to read HANSARD.
What is sometimes forgotten and can perhaps be appreciated only by a dry and dusty lawyer is what a difficult conception consent is anyway. This may be where lawyers, dry and dusty though they are, are sometimes useful, because they must spend much of their time in the very interesting arguments in court about what is and is not consent. If a person receives a letter saying, "Dear Sir, Unless", and there follows a description of the most horrible consequences of a refusal, upon which he consents, is that consent?
If someone says, "Either you must go without your wages or we will change the law and see that you do not get them," and he says, "I might as well not bother, and obey the wage freeze," can he be said to be consenting to it? That is an interesting question.
One could multiply it by example after example, but I am directing what I have in mind most especially to one of the questions raised by new Clause No. 4. This concerns the bringing to bear by one person upon another of some influence which is in the power of the first person because of their relative positions —their relative positions in anything. I understand the 'reason why the Forces have been exempted from the provisions of the Bill. In the Forces there is a hierarchy from the top down, for the purposes of discipline, in which there is superior after superior after superior all the way down. They are people of position and influence. It is recognised by the promoters of the Bill that it is a dangerous situation, when we talk about consent, where there is a superior officer who has certain inclinations. Nobody has a monopoly of these inclinations, if what we have been told is true. It is recognised that there would be grave danger that a person might use his superior rank to obtain the apparent consent of someone in junior rank which would not he consent at all. I understand that that is the principal reason why the Services are exempt from the provisions of the Bill.
I understand that also to be the reason why the Merchant Navy is specifically excluded. There is also the additional factor that the proposed victim has little scope for avoiding the attentions of his superior, though this is equally true in many Service establishments—for example, overseas, time has to be spent in barracks, and the same consideration applies. But I understand the principal consideration to be that in the Merchant Service there are officers, warrant officers and other ranks and that there is a great danger of a person using rank and position in order to obtain consent which in fact is not consent at all.
I asked myself, and I ask the House to ask itself, why stop there? Can one afford to say that there are three cases in which this danger clearly exists, that we shall exclude them and that then all is

well? I suggest to the promoters of the Bill that that is putting on the blinkers and closing one's eyes. There are many other types of service which have a similar hierarchy. What about the police? Is there anything in the Bill which I have overlooked which touches the police? If not, what is the distinction between the police and the Forces or the Merchant Navy? Is there anything in the Bill which touches the prison service? Is not the same danger and difficulty present there?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member asked for guidance in his initial remarks, which I could not give him at the time. It is true that these new Clauses and Amendments are concerned with consent, but with consent in particular circumstances—duress, inducement by money, mental subnormality and so on. When the hon. and learned Member turns to the police force he is outside the scope of the new Clauses and Amendments. He must come back to the new Clauses and the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: I greatly appreciate the kindly way in which you put that to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope, from the manner in which you put it, that you appreciate that I am trying to keep in order and making my point by illustrations. That is why I referred to those Services.
New Clause No. 4 refers to pressure brought by
an employer or superior".
In the police force or the prison service, a superior officer would not be an employer but he would be a superior.
I was on the broader point of how difficult the question of consent is all down the line. When I have made the point I shall suggest that this is why it is so necessary to have some provision such as new Clause No. 4. Everybody recognises that there is a danger of this influence existing in the four Services which are expressly excluded. It appears to me that the promoters have simply drawn the line there, put on the blinkers and overlooked the fact that there is a great deal more to it. In almost any walk of life that one cares to name there is a danger of one person being in a position of influence over another. In any kind of service which I have mentioned


there are superiors rather than employers —and one might add the Fire Service, where there are superiors rather than employers.
1.45 p.m.
Then one comes to employers, because ex hypothesi wherever there is an employer, in some respects he is in a superior position. I should like to see new Clause No. 4 a little wider. I should be out of order if I stated in detail why I take that view, but there certainly are other cases in which influence can be brought to bear. For example, somebody who is travelling on behalf of his employer wants a particularly good contract, and it is indicated to him that there is one way in which he may get it. That is another instance in which undue influence of one kind or another may be brought to bear. The question whether the consent which was given was in fact a consent is a difficult question. It is no good the House shutting its eyes to this and thinking that consent can be clearly defined and clearly recognised. It cannot. The question of what is consent and what is not is very blurred. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will give attention to this matter in connection with these Amendments and others which we shall reach later.
Sufficient attention has not been given to the question of what is consent. That is important from two points of view. The Bill starts in Clause 1(1) simply talking about homosexuality. It creates a general impression that this is not very nice but that in fact they are quite nice people messing about in private—and what does it matter? It is not until one reaches page 2 that one sees what the Bill is talking about. The promoters need to be shocked into a sense of reality. On page 2 hon. Members will find that we are talking about buggery and gross indecency. For the same reason as that which I gave when I spoke on another Amendment this morning, I will not in the House be more specific than that, because it involves talking in terms and in a way which I find too disgusting. I have an impression here, as I had on the last Amendment, that some promoters of the Bill are not facing fairly and squarely what they are talking about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting into a general debate on the merits of the Bill, rather than the propositions contained in the new Clauses and Amendments. I hope that he will relate his arguments to the proposals before the House.

Mr. Percival: It is difficult to explain this fully without getting out of order. It is rather like doing a jigsaw puzzle. First one takes the pieces with straight edges and puts them together. Then one puts in the trees and houses, whereupon the picture begins to take shape. Eventually one puts in the sky—the hardest bit—to make the complete picture. Until one has reached that point it is not easily possible to see the interconnections of each part. I am doing my utmost to keep to the point before the House.

Mr. Doughty: My hon. and learned Friend is referring to
… consent for the purposes of this Act.
Unless we know the definition of that phrase, we cannot fully discuss new Clauses No. 3 and No. 4.

Mr. Percival: I am greatly obliged to my hon. and learned Friend and I was about to ask the House to remind me of the point I had reached in my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is pleased to have the help of his hon. and learned Friend, but I am afraid that it would still not allow him to again raise the whole general principle of the Bill.

Mr. Percival: Why I asked "consent to what?" was because these provisions are intended to provide certain safeguards in relation to consent. Whether or not these safeguards are necessary depends on what it is that is going to be consented to. If it is simply somebody's consent to come out to a dance tomorrow night, then perhaps that does not matter too much. Even consent to have tea in my garden may not matter very much. But when it comes to consent to commit an offence of buggery, it does matter; and it is important for this House—even if hon. Members are a bit shocked about and I hope that they are—to face up to the details of just


what we are discussing when we speak about consent.
Consent by whom? I ask this question because the promoters of the Bill, no doubt with the best intention, have made a mistake which my Amendment, No. 8, would go a good deal of the way to correct. Subsection (3) provides that consent given by a person who is severely subnormal as defined in the Mental Health Act, 1959, shall not be consent: I am sure that that is the view the promoters take. It is really obnoxious and revolting beyond description to contemplate one adult of sound mind indulging in any of these practices with someone of unsound mind. That is revolting beyond belief and the promoters will not dissent from this view. I take it that subsection (3) was inserted because they recognise that something must be done about it.
Have the promoters had a careful look at the Mental Health Act to see what is meant by "severely subnormal"? The 39th volume of Halsbury's Statutes contains four separate definitions of persons of unsound mind. The first is:
In this Act 'mental disorder' means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder, and any other disorder or disability of mind; and 'mentally disordered' shall be construed accordingly.
I wish that the promoters had simply referred to "anybody who is mentally disordered". That would have included the whole lot. The second is:
In this Act 'severe subnormality'"—
and that is what we are talking about
means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of such a nature or degree that the patient is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself against serious exploitation, or will be so incapable when of an age to do so.
This is a person who has very little wit indeed—a person who needs every protection that society can give him; and that is, no doubt, why the severely subnormal are specifically mentioned in the provision. But the definition to which I was referring does not stop there. The third category of subnormal is:
In this Act 'subnormality' means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind (not amounting to severe subnormality) which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of a nature or degree which requires or is susceptible to medical treatment or other special care or training of the patient.

In other words, that is very substantial mental subnormality indeed. The promoters were wrong in limiting what they were trying to do to the severely subnormal. I will not quote the other examples. The subsection should have included the subnormal and anyone suffering from a mental disorder, because it gives one inward revulsion to think of anyone with a mental disorder—whatever one may think of people of sound mind who indulge in these activities; we can differ about that—not being covered by the subsection. By substituting a new formula such as I have described, anyone suffering from a mental disorder would be protected.
In addition, I am worried about the words at the end of subsection (3):
… but a person shall not be convicted, on account of the incapacity of such a man to consent, of an offence consisting of such an act if he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that man to be suffering from severe subnormality".
We no longer use such terms as "lunatics" and "halfwits". Although we now have a sympathetic approach to these matters, let us face the facts. As drafted, the provision is saying, "You can commit buggery on a halfwit and provided you did not take the trouble to rind out that he is a halfwit you will not be convicted".

Sir C. Osborne: It is encouraging people to do it.

Mr. Percival: This cannot be right. I gather from the way in which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is wagging his head that he is dissenting from my submission. I will listen with interest to what he has to say, particularly if he considers that my interpretation is wrong.
I have some experience of a similar defence. It is in respect of cases of unlawful sexual intercourse. I forget the ages, but it is a defence to prove that one did not know that the girl was under a certain age. However, if she is under 16 it does not matter whether or not one knew; and that is right. If she is older than that, then it is a defence to show that one did not know. I understand that the respective ages are 13 and 16. The ages do not matter for the example I am giving. It is the principle that matters.
2.0 p.m.
There is a very good reason in that context for such a defence to be necessary


because, without wishing to appear to be unfavourable to the opposite sex, I must say that in the experience of those who appear sometimes in our criminal courts it is well known that some young ladies are at least as active in the commission of the offence that is before the court as is the man, and that in order to secure their pleasure—this is not a one-way trade in giving pleasure—they dress themselves up, put paint on their faces, and the like, so that no one could reasonably believe that they were less than, say, 21, when their true age is 16. It is reasonable there to provide that sort of defence.
What reason can there be for that provision in this case? The man is severely subnormal. He does not go out of the way to prove that he has the appearance of being normal so that someone will commit the abominable offence on him. It seems altogether too far fetched to suppose that he would. Furthermore, it should be discoverable by a little care. With a girl aged 16 who looks 21 it may be very difficult to discover that fact, but if someone is severely subnormal—and this is why I read out the definition —are we to say that we could not, just by exercising a little care, find out whether this was a normal person, and should we not be fixed with that duty without any reservation whatever? If a man wants to commit the abominable offence, is it not right that it should be up to him, without any qualification or reservation, to make certain that the person on whom he intends to commit the offence is not suffering from any kind of mental disorder?
I am filling in another piece of the jigsaw, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and now I come back to where my hon. and learned Friend helped me out. It would not matter so much if we were talking about getting the consent of the severely subnormal to buy a 6d. raffle ticket, but when we look at this Bill we see that the person about whom we are talking seeks to commit on the severely subnormal person something unnatural, wholly disgusting and physically dangerous.
I say "physically dangerous", because those of us who have had the misfortune to hear these cases in court know that part of the evidence is very often of physical damage done—I cannot even

complete my sentence, the House must guess the rest; let me say, the physical damage done in the act of committing buggery. Anyone who wants the benefit of this Bill, who wants to do that with someone, should have the full responsibility for making certain that the person with whom they do it is of fully sound mind. If they take any risk at all, it should be upon their own heads, and I urge this point of view on the House.
I accept that those who promote the Bill do so out of a feeling of charity, and in order to lessen the difficulties of some people who have weaknesses. Though I disagree with them, I accept that that is a human point of view, but I say to them, "Do apply your human point of view to both sides. Do think of the possible victim as well. You are postulating in subsection (3) that someone has committed buggery on a person of severe subnormality but in that case think of the person of severe abnormality and not just of the other person."
The other person has a remedy—he does not have to do the act. He can find out beforehand whether this is a person of sound mind but. ex hypothesi, that person cannot. By definition he is not fit to look after himself, and we in this House, in the name of the public, have to look after him and not the person on the other side. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove that special defence altogether, and I urge all hon. Members to think about this argument and to act upon it.
I know that I am taking a little time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when four or five major subjects are taken together one has no alternative; one either does nothing, or one makes one's point as best one can. I therefore turn to my Amendment No. 11 to subsection (6) of Clause 1. That subsection reads:
It is hereby declared that where in any proceedings it is charged that a homosexual act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private—
I have read the first four lines of the sentence. Speaking fairly personally, I cannot see why one should put that burden on the prosecution. If people want to take advantage of the Bill why should they not share the burden? But I do not particularly mind that one—let them share


the burden a little, perhaps, or let the prosecution prove it.
But then one reads:
or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of twenty-one years.
That means that the prosecution has to prove that the act was not in private, it has to prove lack of consent, and it has to prove that on the date in question the parties had not reached the appropriate age. What are we trying to do—make quite certain there will never be a prosecution? If so, let us say so. But if they want this to be enforceable law I hope that the promoters will look at this point again.
Again, one sees how some of the straight line cases I put at the beginning help with the picture. I was talking earlier about the blurring that comes in when talking about consent, and this becomes very important when we are talking about lack of consent. Let the onus be on the persons accused to prove consent. They are the people who were there. They are the only ones who know. How can anyone know better than they whether there was consent or not?
There would not be a prosecution at all unless the police had some very good reason to believe that there was not consent. This is a safeguard. If the police were to bring a prosecution without having some very good reason to believe that there was a lack of consent, the case would be dismissed with costs against the police. The police would not act like that. The difficult question, if there are any prosecutions, will be whether or not there was a genuine consent, and in my view to put the onus on the prosecution to prove it is virtually to make it impossible to Mill a prosecution.
There is a second consideration and it is one that I ask the promoter of the Bill to bear in mind, because I am sure that if I am right in my interpretation he would be the last person to want to see this consequence. It appears to me that it is the blackmailers' charter. The victim gives his consent, and then he says to the other person, "We know that the police cannot do anything about this unless I say something to them. I shall tell them that I agreed to a bit of gross indecency but that I did not

agree to buggery." That would enable a prosecution to be brought.
The conversation would go on, "And, friend, that must be worth something to you to avoid, must it not?" There would be all sorts of niceties like that. He might say, "I shall go to the police. Remember, you were my employer at the time. It will not be difficult for me to persuade the police that even if I did not say 'No', I did not say 'Yes'."

Mr. Doughty: A further difficulty arises with the question of age. In law, nobody knows his own age. Such evidence is entirely hearsay.

Sir C. Osborne: I did not know that.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), but I have not finished with the other argument yet.
In using the word "victim", I trust that I shall be forgiven if I call the person who is the object of the attention the victim and the other person the operator. I appreciate—this is what makes it so disgusting—that very often what I call the victim is not the victim but is the person who is being paid. He is not the victim at all. One would postulate that it was unlikely that he would say afterwards to the other person, "I shall say that I did not consent." He will make no bones about it. Since it will have been done in private, it will be one man's word against another's.
Where there is any question of a superior relationship—I use "superior" in the most general terms and not in immoral terms—and a relationship which gives a party an influence, however small, over the other, and if, for example, the person in the superior position has a weakness and cannot help it, we are allowing him to put himself into an impossible position.
Suppose that there is not really any question of the exercise of the influence and that the victim was perfectly willing because he thought that he was on to a good thing. He says to the other, "The police would like to know about this". The other says, "Oh, but you have consented". The victim might reply, "Do you think that the police will believe that, when they know that you have just offered me a rise of £10 a month? They


can look in the books and see that it was paid the month after". The one man is absolutely at the mercy of the other. I believe that, quite unintentionally, if this provision remains, it will be a blackmailer's charter. The other thing which I have against it is that it will make prosecution almost impossible. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will give their attention to both these aspects. I shall listen with interest to the answer.
I appreciate that in difficult matters like this it is possible to get the wrong interpretation, but I do not believe that I have done so. Even if what I have said shocks some people—I hope that it does—I believe that what I have said is right. These are practical possibilities that I have adumbrated. They are practical possibilities which the House of Commons, as the custodian of the public interest, ought not to permit and should provide against before the Bill leaves this House.
I have not said anything about the general principle or whether any of these things should be allowed. That is another matter. Everything which I have said is on the hypothesis that it is right to liberalise. That is a word which I have heard used this morning. If I were to compile a dictionary, I should define "liberalise" thus:
liberalise (verb), commonly used in conjunction with 'the law' to mean changing the law to bring it into line with the opinion of the speaker".
I do not think that it means much more than that.
Likewise, I should describe "enlightened opinion" thus:
enlightened (adjective), commonly used with the noun 'opinion' to describe the opinion of the speaker".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Member means "speaker" with a small "s".

Mr. Percival: Yes, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All the deputies, too, are expressly excluded.
Even if one accepts that it is right to change the law, nothing which I have said bears on that. Everything which I have said arises from an assumption that the law is being changed. I have spoken about the dangers which arise if it is

changed in this way without making other alterations. I ask the House to give consideration to these points before letting them pass.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: In the light of some of the comments that were made in the discussion on New Clause 3, I must remind the House that this is a Private Member's Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]I speak to draw attention to matters which it would be useful for the House to consider and to give the view of the Home Office concerning the effect of certain Amendments.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? As the hon. and learned Gentleman is claiming that it is a Private Member's Bill, I think that it would be in order for those on this side also to consider the privacy of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Pannell: What are we talking about?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that to be a point of order.

Sir C. Osborne: I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary has reminded the House that this is a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Sydney Silverman:: So it is.

Sir C. Osborne: I am therefore asking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when it comes to my turn, if I catch your eye, I shall also be able to talk about the fact that this is a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not entirely clear what point of order the hon. Member is addressing to me, but I am sure that when he speaks he will have the same rights as the Under-Secretary.

Mr. C. Osborne: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Taverne: I was pointing out that my role was to draw attention to the effect of Amendments and to raise any matters which it would be useful for the House to consider. I will, therefore, refer to some of the matters which have been dealt with—

Mr. Sharples: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that the


Home Office abrogates all responsibility in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Taverne: I was pointing out, as the hon. Member will realise, that it was part of my function to draw attention to points which it is important for the House to consider. I shall not seek to emulate the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in the length of the matters which he has raised—

Mr. Farr: On a point of order. Is it right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Under-Secretary to indicate that he is summing up some of the remarks which he has heard when only two hon. Members have yet had a chance to address themselves to the new Clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It does not automatically mean that the Under-Secretary is winding up the debate. This would be a matter for the Chair when the time came.

Mr. Taverne: It is not my job to wind up the debate. New Clause 3 concerns male prostitutes. It is far the House to decide whether it feels that the question of male prostitutes should be put on the same basis as for female prostitutes. It may be helpful for the House to be reminded of what the Wolfenden Committee said about this. In paragraph 63 of its Report, the Wolfenden Committee said:
we should expect that the question whether or not there has been consent' in a particular case would be decided by the same criteria as apply to heterosexual acts between adults. We should expect, for example, that a ' consent' which had been obtained by fraud or threats of violence would be no defence to a criminal charge".
It went on to say:
We are aware that the quality of the consent may vary; consent may amount to anything from an eager response to a grudging submission. We are aware, too, that money, gifts or hospitality are sometimes used to induce consent. But these considerations apply equally to heterosexual relationships, and we find in them no ground for differentiating, so far as the behaviour of adults is concerned, between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
New Clause 4 is concerned with employers' threats. As the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said, the question of consent is a broad concept. The House may take the view that it would be a mistake to single out for special mention particular

cases and, in particular, hypothetical cases. It may be felt that to single out certain cases, such as threats by employers or superiors, would not be the right way to approach a general problem of the criminal law.
It is true that a threat made in the circumstances envisaged in the Clause would not in itself appear to constitute an existing criminal offence, but a man who made such a threat to support an attempt to get another to perform a homosexual act with him would appear to have committed the existing criminal offence of attempting to procure an act of gross indecency or buggery. Therefore, it appears that the creation of an additional offence on the lines proposed in the Clause is unnecessary.
If it could be proved that the act was done only because of the threat, a court would probably hold that there had been no valid consent and the employer or superior would be liable to conviction for the homosexual act.
Suppose that the employee refuses to commit the act. Under this Clause the employer would still be liable for having made the threat. We should then be creating a criminal offence which it would be very difficult indeed to enforce. I am sure that the House does not wish to see the proliferation of criminal offences which are in practice unenforceable. It would be very difficult indeed to get the proof of the threat, which, in the nature of things, would be unlikely to be made before witnesses.
The Clause might cover cases where the employer or superior threatened dismissal and carried out his threat. Even here, it is doubtful whether the provision could be enforced, because it is not easy in such circumstances to prove that the dismissal or threat of dismissal was due to a refusal to engage in homosexual practices. If someone could prove this, he would have his right in civil remedy in any event. Therefore, the first difficulty about new Clause 4 is that one would be creating an offence which it would be extremely difficult to enforce.

Mr. Percival: Did I hear the Under-Secretary say that a person on whom the abominable offence had been committed owing to a threat would have a civil remedy? What would it be?

Mr. Taverne: I did not say that.
Amendment No. 8 is concerned with the question of offences committed with those suffering from severe subnormality. The hon. and learned Member for Southport said that knowledge was necessary in some cases with girls under 16 and that was reasonable, but that the case of severe subnormality was entirely different in the case of homosexuals. Again, it is for the House to decide whether it takes the view, as the Wolfenden Committee did, that in some respects the law relating to homosexuals should be put on the same footing as that relating to heterosexuals.
In fact, the position under Section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, as amended by the Mental Health Act, 1959, would be similar to the position as it would be enacted in the Bill. The idea of committing heterosexual acts with people who are incapable of giving consent is one from which many people would shy away and regard with horror. It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman who is severely subnormal, but it is a defence if he does not know that this severe subnormality was present. The effect of the Bill would be to put the law as to homosexuals on the same basis as the law with regard to heterosexuals.
I do not entirely understand Amendment No. 9, which deals with severe mental abnormality. It would have the effect of restricting the special defence that one did not know to cases where the accused was himself suffering from such severe mental abnormality as to be able to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, the other man to be severely abnormal. It seems to postulate prosecution for an act performed with a severely subnormal man by a man who is himself so mentally subnormal that he can prove, by reason of that subnormality, that he did not know of, and had no reason to suspect, the severe subnormality of the other man.

Mr. Mawby: Perhaps I can help the Under-Secretary. This is an Amendment which I have lifted from the Committee stage, where it was not considered. It was originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas). who is a supporter of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult my hon. Friend to find out the basic reasoning of the Amendment.

Mr. Taverne: The Amendment, whoever put it forward, seems to make absolute nonsense. Indeed, the hon. and and learned Member for Southport said that a person who was severely subnormal would not in any event know what he was doing. Therefore, I do not think that the Amendment could be pursued with a great deal of profit.
I want to make some comments on the question of the burden of proof, which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Southport. It is a general principle of justice which is normally accepted that the burden of proving any criminal charge should lie on the prosecution. What the House must consider is whether we should put the law as to homosexual conduct on the same basis as that relating to heterosexual conduct. It is accepted, in cases of offences of having carnal relations with girls under 16 and under 13, that the prosecution must prove that the age of the girl was under 13 or under 16. As the Bill stands, it would put homosexual conduct on the same basis.

Mr. Percival: The hon. and learned Gentleman prays in aid the general law. What is happening in the Bill is that certain exceptions are to be made from the general law. This is the tenor of Clause 1. Is it not perfectly reasonable to say that people who want to bring themselves within that exception must do so?

Mr. Taverne: The basic question which was faced by the Wolfenden Committee and which is the substance of the Bill is whether homosexual conduct between consenting adult males should be put on the same basis as heterosexual conduct between consenting adults. If the Bill were amended in the way suggested in Amendment No. 11, the prosecution would have his right in civil remedy of homosexual conduct, whereas it does have to prove the age of the person concerned in cases of carnal knowledge of girls under 16 and under 13.
I am not quite sure that I follow the effect of Amendment No. 12, because Clause 1(6) deals with the burden of proof and declares that in proceedings for homosexual offences it is for the prosecution to prove certain things. All that Amendment No. 12 says is that the prosecution must prove that there was no


consent because a purported consent was given under duress, which is in effect what is already provided for in the Clause. I understand the hon. Member for Totnes to be saying, by this Amendment, that in effect there must be a general provision about duress, including pressure put on people by their superiors.
I return to what was said earlier about employers' threats. The whole question of consent is one which also has to be considered in heterosexual cases. It has to be considered in questions of rape. The question of consent is very often considered by the courts. We can leave the courts to decide whether, in a particular case. consent did or did not exist.
The examples which were given of the casting couch were cases of a type which it is certainly rather difficult to prove. I have no idea whether this practice is widespread. It is said that the casting couch exists in the theatre with people with homosexual tendencies. It would prove very difficult to bring any prosecution. To provide for this by specific provisions in the law might be a difficult thing to do, and in the past the general issue of consent has always been left to the court as a whole to consider.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Doughty: Before I deal with these new Clauses, I should like to refer to certain points raised by the Under-Secretary. This may be a Private Member's Bill, but it is being discussed in Government time. We should remember that very clearly. Although this is a Friday, it is not a private Members' day. Therefore, the Government have got to take full responsibility for this Bill and for its passage if it should go through.
The Under-Secretary said that he rose only to draw attention to certain points raised by hon. Members. Would it not have been better if he had waited to see what those points were, since there are many other hon. Members who want to raise points? We are now in the position of having to say "Will the Under-Secretary please speak again and deal with this point?" It is not usual in these circumstances that those on the Government Front Bench should get up to reply after a very few Members have spoken and when it is obvious that a great many others still wish to speak.
The Under-Secretary went on to say that the purpose of this legislation was to bring this type of practice into line with more normal practices referred to as heterosexual acts. It is nothing of the sort. The Bill deals with the exceptions to normal practices, which, unless the Bill is passed, constitute a very serious criminal type of offence. We should bear that fact closely in mind.
Nor is it right for the Under-Secretary to say that one can take the question of consent to the courts, It is not always easy for a judge in summing up to a jury to say exactly what consent means in law. He should have the assistance of legislation. Take the case, referred to in new Clauses 3 and 4, of a person who consents but does so by reason of financial gain or because he thinks he might receive advancement in his employment. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said, these questions of consent are very difficult. A judge may tell a jury, "This consent was freely given"—though it may have been given as a result of the promise of money or hope of promotion "Therefore, there can be no case for you to decide." It is the desire of those who have put down new Clauses 3 and 4 that that should not be allowed to happen. That is why consent is considerably extended by matters that have already been taken out of the Bill—if I may use that expression—as not amounting to excuses for this type of conduct. I refer to the Services, the Merchant Navy and so on.
Clause 3 deals particularly with male prostitutes and those who are overborne by payments of money and gifts. We can assume that many people who indulge in this act may be well off and in a position to give large sums of money to those whom they desire—to use an unpleasant word. Is that to be left in this Bill or is it to be taken out by the new Clause? The question of consent arises in every court. It arises in civil matters —whether consent was given when signing a document, for example. It is always a difficult matter to decide. It is dodging one's responsibilities to say "We will leave it to the court to decide as a question of fact".
When we are considering whether willingness has been obtained by the payment of money or of gifts, this is a matter on which every Member must speak from


his own views, but I do not consider that that should be allowed to be used as a defence for consent. It is no excuse to say, "It is always very difficult to prove because all these acts take place in private between two people." Very often people write silly things. Very often they give cheques bearing their signatures. It is not always the fact that one has to rely on one person's word against another. I do not intend to refer to blackmail and the offer to change one's evidence in return for the payment of money or gifts, though this Bill reeks of blackmail. It is the blackmailer's charter. But to go into the detail of every case which lays itself open to the encouragement of blackmail would take up too much time of the House.
Turning to new Clause 4, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport said, nowadays we never use words which mean what they say. When we are dealing with a Bill which encourages one of the most unpleasant practices which exist, we are said to be liberalising the law. Nobody gets the sack; he is made redundant. Therefore, if we want to consider fully the question of somebody being made redundant or being offered promotion, or whatever the inducement or threat, from a superior to a young person—I mean somebody just over 21 years of age—who is perhaps anxious to get on in his job, to obtain advancement perhaps in the theatrical world or wherever it is, at the moment that consent is willingly given, in the sense that no force or intimidation are used. This could apply to somebody in a superior position—for example, a senior Minister in his relationship with a back bencher who was after promotion. I mean no disrespect to this House or to any hon. Member when I say that, of course, but it could apply in such a case.
At the moment that would be no offence under the Bill. That is the kind of thing which can take place. It is not provided for in the Bill. We say "Leave it to the courts". That is not fair to the courts, unless we give directions to the courts on what in the special and peculiar circumstances of this Bill can he said to amount to consent and what should not be said to amount to consent.
I turn to one of the other Clauses dealing with the onus of proof. I do not agree with the Under-Secretary when he says, "It is always the duty of the prosecution to prove their case. Therefore, the burden should be on the prosecution throughout". This Bill takes out of the criminal law of this country certain acts which are specified in the Bill. If the defence is going to rely upon the matters raised in the Bill, then it should be for the defence to prove the matters upon which they are relying. It is not unknown to the law that there are several matters where the onus is shifted to the defence if they raise a particular matter. This should be included in the Bill.
Then there is the question of subnormality as defined in the Mental Health Act, 1959. It is, in fact, severe abnormality, according to that definition, which I shall not read again. Surely we are not to allow a person to put forward the excuse that he did not know that the other person was suffering from this extreme mental illness. That is one of the most repugnant aspects of this Bill. If the Amendment removes that provision, I shall gladly vote in favour of it.
I do not wish to repeat the objections which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport raised. No doubt other hon. Members will raise further points. I ask that these two new Clauses be accepted. They are sound, as are the Amendments that are being discussed with them. All of them should be included in the Bill if it ever becomes an Act—and I would only add, even if I go out of order for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that it will not become an Act.

Sir C. Black: I am compelled again to express my sense of great disappointment at the contribution to the debate made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State, which left me quite unconvinced regarding the propositions that he was putting before the House. I do not say this in an unkind way, but it seems to me that the policies he advocates are more and more designed to make the ways of transgressors more and more easy and to make it more and more unlikely that wrongdoers can ever he dealt with by the law. That, I suggest, in the present climate of behaviour in the country is not a policy which the


Home Office ought to be advocating in this House and pursuing.
My general attitude in regard to the Bill is fairly well known from former speeches I have made and votes I have cast and I am sure that I would be out of order to say anything about the general principles of the Bill at this moment. But I want to discuss what seem to me to be the matters that are implicit in the two new Clauses and the Amendments we are debating. I cannot hope to discuss this on the strictly legal considerations which have been canvassed at considerable length by hon. and learned Members skilled in the law and to whom we have listened with great interest. I want to deal with what seem to me to be two or three of the main principles that underly the matter.
The Bill is designed to deal with the cases of particular Acts performed in private by consenting adults and in these two new Clauses and the Amendments we are really dealing with the question of what is meant by the word "consenting"—what is the difference between a male who is consenting in a particular set of circumstances and a male who, in the legal sense, may be said not to be doing so.
I think that I would probably carry the House with me in saying that, to the great majority of people, homosexual acts are repulsive in any circumstances and at any time. But, if that be true, how very much more repulsive they are when one of the parties participates not of his own free will but as the result of the fact that he is being paid a sum of money or offered some inducement. To argue that in these circumstances such a person in a legal sense comes within the word "consenting" seems to me to be straining language in a way in which it should not be strained.
There is general agreement in the House and in the country about the wrongness of discrimination as applied to persons in connection with colour or race. We rightly abominate and detest discrimination in reference to such matters as housing and employment when it is directed against particular individuals, not because of any circumstances for which those individuals have a responsibility, but because they happen to be a certain colour or nationality. We all deplore that kind of discrimination.
But is it not equally wrong that a man should be discriminated against in respect of employment because he prefers to maintain decent and clean moral standards and refuses to submit to the importunities and blandishments of an employer or prospective employer or a landlord or prospective landlord? That seems to me basically to be the issue we are discussing.
2.45 p.m.
I think that it must be within the knowledge of all right bon and hon. Members that it is commonly rumoured—and certainly there is no reason to doubt the general correctness of the rumours—that employment in various walks of life, particularly in reference to the stage and entertainment world, cinema and television, can very often only be obtained as a result of willingness on the part of the individual to participate in the kinds of acts dealt with in this Bill. It is to deal with that situation that we are seeking that safeguards should be introduced into the Bill.
It is, of course, true that these two new Clauses and the Amendments are designed for the protection of persons of all ages. They are not based upon particular age limits. But it must be obvious that the people who particularly need this protection are the younger people, the less mature and less experienced people, rather than people of more mature and more advanced years. If there is one section of the community at present which is deserving of any reasonable protection that the House can give, both in respect of this matter and other moral behaviour, it is surely the younger people who are growing up.
I have the greatest sympathy with young people at present. I have been engaged in one way or another in youth work for a considerable part of my life. I do not take my stand with those who indulge in what I think is indiscriminate and unjustified condemnation of young people in general. The great majority of them have sound standards and good moral principles and are as sound as the younger people of former times.
But where they have my sympathy, and where they seem to me to be deserving of the protection of the House where possible, is in reference to the vastly greater temptations to which they are subject than were young people of 40


or 50 years ago, when I was a young man. It is, in my judgment, a state of affairs of which this House should take cognisance and in which we should, as far as we can, safeguard the people who are the future leaders of our race.
It would be a person blind indeed to the signs of the times who did not recognise that there are powerful vested interests in this country whose one objective is quite clear and plain—the corruption of youth. Corruption is proceeding apace and the crime for which Socrates was wrongly accused and wrongly executed is a crime which is very widely practised in our community. The Under-Secretary made pleas about the dangers and uncertainties created by particular safeguards, and said that we should dismiss the Clauses and Amendments because of legal niceties, but the counsel is always that we should do nothing in the face of this situation and I unashamedly make my appeal that we depart from that form of negation and defeatism, and try to do something to make the country more decent for the people who want to lead decent lives.

Sir Frank Pearson: The whole House will be deeply grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for having dealt with the series of Amendments so competently and with such great legal skill. The subjects of consent and burden of proof which run through the group of Amendments are particularly matters which can best be dealt with by those with legal knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, I think that there is a duty on those of us who may not be legally competent to present to the House the view of possibly the ordinary man on a matter which I believe to be of central importance.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary is leaving, because I wished to deal for a moment with the case as his Under-Secretary put it a few moments ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and learned Gentleman has gone too."] As the House will recognise, this shows the total lack of responsibility that the Home Office has for the Bill. I see that the Minister of State is here—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I have been here all the time.

Sir Frank Pearson: As the Under-Secretary shuffled off any Home Office responsibility for the Bill, I wonder if we can have an assurance from the right hon. Lady that should the proceedings this afternoon not see a termination of our deliberations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better talk about the multitude of Amendments that he has an opportunity of talking about at the moment.

Sir Frank Pearson: I shall move on directly to the Amendment and leave it to the imagination of the House to understand the point I was trying to make.
I think it wrong that the Minister should intervene so early in our deliberations before he can be fully cognisant of all the points hon. Members will put to him. On the other hand, there is the advantage that those of us who wish to contribute later fully understand how thin the Government's case is, having heard it all before. In dealing with new Clause 4 and the group of Amendments, the Under-Secretary turned down the Clause mainly on two grounds, I understood. First, he said that it was totally wrong for us to pick out particular cases and try to legislate for them, and that to do so merely made bad law. If his theory is correct, I suggest that there has rarely been a Bill that particularised more than the one we are considering. Can anybody think of any other Government Measure where it is not an offence to go behind a bush in Regent's Park but it is an offence to go down the steps of Piccadilly Circus? If that is not particularising, I do not know what is. Therefore, the whole argument for turning down the new Clause on the ground that it particularises is totally without substance.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that it would be difficult—in fact almost impossible—to prove that a threat had been made by an employer. If he accepts that it is impossible to prove that a threat has been made by an employer, surely it is almost equally impossible to prove that consent has or has not been given? I can see no difference between proving the one or the other. I therefore suggest that the reasons for which the Clause has been turned down are very thin, and in no way justify the position


taken up by the Home Office in this matter.
The hon. and learned Gentleman then turned to the question of burden of proof and the matter of consent. Here I understood that he had only one answer. He said, "Ah, but we are using all the provisions which deal with heterosexual offences and have made them apply to homosexual offences." That may be well; it may be convenient always to follow precedent. But we are dealing with a very different set of circumstances when we deal with homosexual offences. In the other matters the threat f blackmail is not present to the same extent. We are not dealing with an unnatural act or an unnatural offence, whereas in this case we are. Because we are dealing with an unnatural act and an unnatural offence, special provisions should apply to ensure that all those who may be subject to weakness are given particular support and protection.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said. I should like to stress the need in our country today to make particular provision for the protection of youth. The House should pay the greatest attention to this.
I regret that not one voice has been raised from the other side during the whole debate to challenge the provisions of the Bill. Not one voice has been raised to lend weight to our requests that proper provision should be made to ensure that the weak and helpless are not made the subject of commercial and other undesirable practices.
3.0 p.m.
I was greatly impressed by the arguments put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the, Member for Southport on the Clauses dealing with those who are mentally sick and mentally subnormal. I was amazed to find that, under this Bill, there are only certain gradations of the mentally ill who will receive protection. However, there are the weak-minded and the feeble-minded. There is no protection for them under the Bill. Let us not forget that, under the new Mental Health Act, there are many people released today from our mental homes and hospitals who are not fully capable of looking after themselves but who are put out into society and

told that they must stand on their own feet. Those are the people whom the right hon. Lady should be at pains to protect, but I can see no provision in the Bill which will protect them.
I hope that the House will give the fullest support not only to the new Clause, which gives special protection against the unscrupulous employer, but also to the Amendments which seek to ensure that those who are feebly-minded get the complete protection of the law.

Mr. Abse: If there are those who feel that the short contribution which my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary made when he intervened on the first occasion was inadequate, only the most churlish would suggest that he has not explained why it is that the series of Clauses and Amendments before us now are, in effect, impracticable even if they are desirable.
There is a difference between the Bill's supporters and those who support these Clauses and Amendments, and that difference is founded substantially on the fact that they are not satisfied with the principle adumbrated in the Wolfenden Report concerning consent, where it is made clear that the Committee expects the question of whether or not there has been consent in a particular case to be decided by the same criteria as apply to heterosexual acts between adults. As it is at present drafted, everything has been done in the Bill to implement that recommendation, and that is the great divide between those of us who support the Wolfenden proposals and those who are against us.
I do not believe that I could usefully comment further than has been done except, perhaps, in one particular. It is dealing with the question which is raised substantially in new Clause No. 3, that a homosexual act induced by the payment of money or a gift shall not be deemed to constitute consent.
In another place, the Lord Chancellor drew attention to an identical Amendment which was then being considered and emphasised that the passing of an Amendment of this kind would mean most certainly that the object of many of us who support the Bill could not be achieved. If this Clause were passed, it would mean that all that a blackmailer


would have to do would be to say, "Unless you give me money, I shall tell the police that you paid me something or that you gave me hospitality." If that happened, one of the principal objects of the Bill, namely, the idea that we want to get rid of blackmailers once and for all, would be defeated. It is because of that that I regard this Clause and the other one which we are considering as provisions which would completely sabotage the main intention of the whole Bill.
If it be thought that one is speaking from theory here, I can assure the House that we are not. There is practical experience about which I think the House should know. In 1961, there was considerable concern in Denmark to deal with some of the problems of male prostitution, and the Danish Legislature was induced to pass a Measure which became known throughout Denmark as the "Ugly Bill". It was designed to make it an offence in the event of any money passing between two parties to a homosexual act. It was doing precisely what the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) seeks to do by his Clause.
Although assurances were given that it would be applied only in cases of what was regarded as male prostitution and would not extend to other types of relationships, nevertheless the degree of blackmail which followed from that Bill in 1961 was of such a severe character and so alarmed public opinion as a result of a series of cases that, after its operation for four years, the Minister concerned came before the Danish Legislature, and the Bill was repealed. In other words, what hon. Members seek to do has been attempted before, and it brought about the result which the Lord Chancellor correctly divined in another place would be the inevitable one.
It is for reasons such as these that I hope that the House will reject both the Amendments and the new Clauses.

Sir Frank Pearson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he please deal with the question of mental health?

Mr. C. Pannell: No. He has not got to deal with all of it.

Mr. Dance: We are all extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member

for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) for putting these new Clauses and Amendments before us. I am sorry that we cannot say the same for the Under-Secretary of State, who, just as on the previous new Clause, gave no attention and no real answers to the very good points which my hon. Friends have put. We are extremely grateful, also, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for raising—it was in most of our minds—the difficult question of consent.
As has been said, there is the question of consent not brought about by brutality or threats of brutality but by various other means. For many years, people have known of the "casting couch" in the world of films and the stage. The male "casting couch" is known very much in the ballet. If new Clause No. 3 is not accepted, there will be blackmail in reverse, not a matter of demanding money from the individual unless he complies but of saying, "You will not get this job, or this promotion, unless you comply". This is a serious matter, which makes it essential to have these new Clauses and certain of the Amendments brought into the Bill.
Here is an example, of which I know, which happened some years ago in the South of France, with disastrous effect on the lives of two young men. There were two old homosexuals living in the South of France, in oriental magnificence in a beautiful villa. For several years, although they were a bit of a joke, they caused no particular harm. Then they began to get tired of one another, and they sought for someone younger, more juvenile and fresh. As a result, they imported two unfortunate youths down to the South of France from London.
These two youths led a life—this bears out exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said—to which they were entirely unaccustomed, a life of great luxury the like of which they had never seen before. Time went on and, just as the two old "queers" had got bored with each other, they got bored with the two youths whom they had imported. So the youths had to go.
Those circumstances would be exactly covered by the proposals now before the House. The reference in new Clause No. 3 is to the payment of money or a gift. I maintain that the life which the two youths led in the South of France


could be regarded as a gift. But that gift suddenly rebounded on them. What was the result? I know, because the case has been followed through, that they returned to London, to a drab life which they just could not tolerate because of the extravagance of the life which they had led the previous year, and so they became male prostitutes. From that they became drug addicts.
Do we want that sort of thing to go on? It will. It is going on now, and if the Bill is passed without these new Clauses and Amendments I fear that it will go on with far greater intensity than before. I therefore hope that the new Clauses and Amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Mawby: To this very important group of new Clauses and Amendments we have had the shortest possible reply, both from the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). The Under-Secretary was at pains to tell the House that this is a Private Member's Bill. I am glad that he told us that, because I had the impression that it had ceased to be a Private Member's Bill and had been taken over by the Government.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Shame.

Mr. Mawby: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene? I say this because the Government have adopted the Bill. They have given time on a day which is not a private Members' day, and have in their method of selection ignored a number of excellent Private Members' Bills which now have to take their place in the queue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot to discuss on these new Clauses and Amendments. The hon. Member must keep to them.

Mr. Mawby: I apologise, Mr. Speaker and will say no more about it. In his reply the Under-Secretary relied a great deal upon the Wolfenden Report, as did the hon. Member for Pontypool. The Minister suggested that we ought to accept the Report. This is not the first and certainly will not be the last Report which has not been accepted in all its recommendations. We can think of the debate that occurred only yesterday to emphasise that point. I do not agree

with the Wolfenden Report, and I know that many other hon. Members do not agree with it. It said that there was no ground for any difference being drawn between males and females in this respect. I do not agree. That is why new Clause No. 3 is necessary.
The second main point made by the Under-Secretary was that most of the requirements covered by the new Clauses and Amendments were unenforceable. That remains to be seen. Even if the problem of enforceability exists, I would much rather these provisions be written clearly into the Bill, so that everyone can know what we feel about these practices.
The only point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool was that certain legislation was passed in Denmark in 1961 which had led to a considerable amount of blackmail. We all have our own ideas about the basis for blackmail. That may have been the view taken after four years of operation of that Act, when it was repealed, but many of our own Acts of Parliament which have been in operation for a short time should be repealed, because they do not work. Nevertheless, it looks as thought the Danes took a different view, and they repealed the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
The hon. Member did not say a word about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) about the mentally subnormal and the various gradations in which one can move from severe subnormality right through the whole gamut. Yet the Bill deals purely and simply with the severely mentally subnormal and not with the feeble-minded. Therefore, our points have not been satisfactorily answered. I am not trying to prevent any of my hon. Friends from putting further points, but, because of the very sparse and unsatisfactory answers which we have had, I suggest to them that we should divide when the times comes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Dr. David Kerr: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Both


these new Clauses are in my name and I put them down after careful consideration and advice from the Clerks of the House. Is it not a gross infringement of the rights of Private Members—?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the

Division No. 388.]
AYES
[3.16 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Albu, Austen
Hattersley, Roy
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Allen, Scholefield
Heifer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Horner, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Barnes, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Howie, w.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, L.
Rees, Merlyn


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boston, Terence
Hunt, John
Richard, Ivor


Bradley, Tom
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roebuck, Roy


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Chapman, Donald
Judd, Frank
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)


Davies, Or. Ernest (Stratford)
Lee, John (Reading)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Delargy, Hugh
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dell, Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Snow, Julian


Dickens, James
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Teeling, Sir William


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Weitzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Freeson, Reginald
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ginsburg, David
Moonman, Eric
Yates, Victor


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. E. Rowlands.


Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)





NOES


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Tomney, Frank


Dance, James
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Doughty, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ray Mawby and Mr. John Farr.

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked whether I would permit a Division on new Clause No. 4 after we have dealt with new Clause No 3. That will be permitted.

Question has been put to the House, That the Question be now put. It is for the Chair to accept or reject it.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 19.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 124.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. John Farr and


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tomney, Frank
Mr. James Dance.


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamling, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. n. E.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hooley, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Barnes, Michael
Horner, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bell, Ronald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Bidwell, Sydney
Howie, W.
Reynolds, G. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, L.
Richard, Ivor


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boston, Terence
Hunt, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Bradley, Tom
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jeger.Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, H. P. G.
Judd, Frank
Sharples, Richard


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, John (Reading)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, Hugh
Lip ton, Marcus
Snow, Julian


Dell, Edmund
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dickens, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Teeling, Sir William


Edwards, Robert (Bitston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weitzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Winnick, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Moonman, Eric
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Freeson, Reginald
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Yates, Victor


Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stan



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. E. Rowlands and


Grieve, Percy
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Eric G. Varley.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Orders of the Day — New Clause 4.—(EMPLOYERS'. &C. THREATS.)

Anyone who uses his position as an employer or superior to threaten dismissal or downgrading, &c., in employment for the refusal to engage in homosexual practices shall be guilty of a criminal offence and liable on conviction

Division No. 390.]
AYES
[3.33 p.m.


Black, Sir Cyril
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Tomney, Frank


Cary, Sir Robert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Doughty, Charles
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Drayson, G. B.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Ray Mawby and


Farr, John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. James Dance.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian





NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Coe, Denis


Albu, Austen
Boston, Terence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Alfen, Scholefield
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deiargy, Hugh


Barnes, Michael
Cant, R. B,
Deli Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dickens, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Driberg, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Chapman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack

to imprisonment for a term of five years or to a fine of £5,000.—[Sir C. Osborne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 124.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Judd, Frank
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Ellis, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ennals, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus
Roebuck, Roy


Fletcher-cooke, Charles
Luard, Evan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foley, Maurice
Lubbock, Eric
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradlord, E.)
Sharples, Richard


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacCoM, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Snow, Julian


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Grieve, Percy
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taverne, Dick


Ham ling, William
Mayhew, Christopher
Teeling, Sir William


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Heffer, Eric S.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Horner, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wallace, George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Weitzman, David


Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Huckfield, L.
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hunt, John
Pannell Rt. Hn. Charles
Winnick, David


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;st.P'cras,S.)

Yates, Victor


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pavitt, Laurence



Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. E. Rowlands.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTS IN PRIVATE.)

Sir C. Osborne: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9 to leave out 'twenty-one' and to insert 'twenty-five'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment may be discussed Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five'.

Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

Amendment No. 23, in line 9, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five'.

Amendment No. 25, in line 15, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

Amendment No. 29, in line 31, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

And Amendment No. 30, in line 36, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

Sir C. Osborne: An hon. Member has just shouted to me that this is a wasted day. I do not think so. My colleagues and I, who may not be absolutely right, but at least our motives are honourable, have done our best to protect youth. Yet a so-called learned Member of the House says that it is a waste of time to protect the young and the weak. I am ashamed of him. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter with me.

Among the many letters I have received is one I should like to quote and which is germane to this point. A man writes to me:
I am a doctor, have been concerned with youth activities for some 30 years, and have written on the subject of homosexuality in the medical Press"—
So this is someone who, I suppose, is qualified to have a reasonable opinion on the subject—
I believe most General Practitioners agree with me that it is a most dangerous Bill for the youth of the country. Imagine what would happen in a bad patch in almost any university or college where the students were roughly halved by the age of consent. It would just become a jest. I am pretty certain the bulk of the medical profession is with you.

Those of us who have done work in various youth clubs and youth movements, as I did 40 years ago, know from experience that there are some who mature young and some who mature older. [Laughter.] Also, like certain hon. Members opposite, there are those who never mature at all and who show themselves up by their hilarity at what I consider to be a very serious subject.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Is that why the hon. Member has a smile on his face?

Sir C. Osborne: What else can the hon. Member expect me to do when I


am looking at him? It may be that I take this subject too seriously, but I think it is better to take it seriously rather than pay no serious attention to it at all.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Keep going. The hon. Member is doing a great job.

Sir C. Osborne: I am trying to help the weaker section of the community, whom the promoter of this Bill has said he desires to help. I am seeking to take temptation out of the way of our weaker brethren. I should think that is a legitimate thing to try to do. As a fairly large employer of labour I know that there are fellows who are mature when they are 17 or 18 years of age while there are others who are not mature even when they reach the age of 25.
Reference has been made to the power of the employer or managing director over the younger members of his staff who are looking for promotion, who are looking for this and for the other, who are hoping to improve their position in life and whose prospects of doing so depend upon somebody in a superior position. The younger they are, generally, the more they are liable to succumb to temptation. I want the House to agree to increase the age of consent from 21 to 25 years of age.
In Clause 3—and I hope hon. Members will not giggle about this so much—we are asking, in page 3, line 31, to leave out 'sixteen' and to insert 'eighteen'. The Clause reads:
The maximum punishment which may he imposed on conviction on indictment of a man for buggery with another man of or over the age of sixteen shall, instead of being imprisonment for life as prescribed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1956, be—
instead of imprisonment for life—
imprisonment for a term of ten years except where the other man consented thereto.
This means that the Government—the Home Secretary is really responsible—are reducing the protection which is at present afforded by a life sentence to a period of 10 years' imprisonment.
It may be argued that when a man is given a life sentence he comes out of prison in about nine years. But assuming that the penalty gives a certain degree of protection, this Clause weakens the protection given to those between 16 and 18 years of age. A man who is found

guilty of this crime at the moment is subject to life imprisonment, but according to this Bill that sentence is to be reduced to a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. Why make that decision? What justification is there for it? We say that lads—because they are mere lads—between the ages of 16 and 18 should have the maximum protection of the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I would have thought that any reasonable hon. Member would have accepted that proposition.
If a life sentence is to give any protection at all, in any case it is obvious that it should be retained as long as possible. The two years between 16 and 18 are a very vulnerable period in a developing lad's life and during this time he should be given the utmost protection of the law. Clause 3(1,b) says:
in the said excepted case, imprisonment for a term of five years if the accused is of or over the age of twenty-one and the other man is under that age, but otherwise two years;
Is the Home Secretary saying that the position in the country regarding homosexuality is such that it warrants smaller and lower penalties? That is what Clause 3 suggests. But the figures I read out earlier from the criminal statistics show that what we need at present is more discipline and more punishment and not less. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) nods his head in agreement.

Mr. Heffer: No. In amazement.

Sir C. Osborne: Nodding one's head usually means agreement.
We seek to prove that the maximum sentence for buggery of a young man should remain life imprisonment. We used to think that punishment was meant to fit the crime and that punishment was the deterrent in social and individual life as the bomb is the ultimate deterrent internationally. But it seems that the protection given by the punishment of a life sentence accorded to youngsters between the age of 16 and 18 is now to be removed.
I cannot understand how hon. Members, no matter how fascinated they may be with the whole subject, can support this provision in the Bill. It is an incredible thing at a time like this that they should go back to their constituents and say, "We, the guardians of youth in


this country "—because this does deal with the youth of the country—"have walked through the Lobbies in order to reduce the sentence on men who abuse lads between the ages of 16 and 18." It is inconceivable. Yet that is what hon. Members are proposing to do.—[Laughter.] They think it is funny. The Home Secretary grins about it. He thinks it is funny. If my words do not commend themselves to him, at least the thing I am seeking to promote—the protection of the young—should surely meet with his approval and not with his sneers. Mr. Speaker, I hope that I am in order.

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman is not in order, I will let him know.

Sir C. Osborne: All through the debates in both Houses the two threads which have run through the arguments of hon. Members have been clear. The first was that the Bill was an attempt to stop blackmail, and we all agree about that. The second was that it was to protect the youth of the country. Those are the two basic hopes and ideals behind the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend would say that, if he had the power of speech once more. But for the moment he is under a vow of silence.
We are asking that the age should be increased from 16 to 18 in Clause 3, at least to attract the lower penalties which the Home Secretary feels are adequate. Let us not forget that, but for the Home Secretary's support, the Bill would not be here today. This is Government time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the Amendment.

Sir C. Osborne: The presence of the Home Secretary tempts me to stray. It is my urgent desire to do my best for the youth of this country that causes me to say that we should accept the Amendment, and I hope that the House will do so.

Mr. Mawby: The Amendments we are discussing are concerned with two main points. One is the question whether 21 should be considered the age of consent. I suppose that it was natural that the sponsors should choose that age, because it is normally regarded as the age when a boy reaches adulthood. I believe that we should raise the age, although I would not put it as high

as a noble Lord did in another place. I do not think we need to put up any great argument to support our view that the age should be 25.
The second point is much more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has said. Throughout the chequered history of Bills on the subject of homosexuality one of the main claims of the sponsors has been that although the Bill would permit consenting adults to perform such acts done in private it made it more difficult and tightened up the law against anyone having relations with someone who was not an adult, by imposing heavier penalties. Yet Clause 3 reduces to 10 years a penalty which is now normally life imprisonment. This shows that the sponsors are not as eager to protect youth as they seek to show by their speeches. It may well be that they have felt that a life sentence normally means only about 10 years and therefore wonder why the judge should be put to the trouble of passing a life sentence. But I understand that that is true about only murderers where the Home Secretary has special powers under which he can release a person on licence, whereas his powers in other cases are much more limited.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins) indicated dissent.

Mr. Mawby: I am obviously wrong about that, as the Home Secretary shakes his head, but that is what I understand the position to be. I therefore take it that even where a person had been sentenced to life imprisonment for committing buggery with a young man over the age of 16, the Home Secretary could intervene and release the prisoner before the life sentence was completed, if he wished. May I take it that that is the case? If that is so, there is no need to provide that the sentence shall be ten years rather than life imprisonment, because, obviously, if the Home Secretary of the day felt in certain circumstances that a person ought to be released in the interests not only of himself but of society as well—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ANTI-BALLISTIC DEFENCE SYSTEMS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: Neither when I applied for a debate on the subject of anti-ballistic defences some months ago, nor even when I learned last Thursday that I had been successful, could I have had any idea how urgently topical the debate would be. There is no doubt that the explosion by the Chinese People's Republic of a hydrogen-type device last Saturday will have an important effect in increasing the pressures which already exist both in the United States and in the Soviet Union to develop anti-ballistic defence systems of the kind which have been under consideration for a considerable time.
I do not think that I need to dwell for long on the undesirability of that development. There are two main international reasons why it would be deplorable. The first is the well-known one that it would introduce another type of arms race on an entirely new level. It would increase demands for expenditure at an enormous rate. There have been estimates made in the United States of the cost of developing a system of this kind which have varied between 20 billion and 60 billion dollars. If one takes the estimate of Mr. McNamara himself of about 40 billion dollars, the development of a system of this kind would represent the expenditure of the whole of Britain's annual defence budget for eight years in succession. That gives some idea of the order of magnitude and of the enormous expenditure and wastage of resources which would be involved if there were a new arms race of this kind, assuming that no agreement between the two Powers could be reached.
The second major international disadvantage of this development is one which is less well known but which, in the long run, could have even more serious consequences. It would destabilise the existing nuclear balance between the two main Powers. This arises because there is a danger that any Power which

developed a full-scale system of this kind—though at the moment the main discussion is not about a full-scale system —might come to believe that it had achieved some kind of invulnerability against the nuclear missiles of the other main Power. The effect might be that it would be tempted to dare certain initiatives which otherwise it would not be prepared to in the state of the existing nuclear balance. It would not necessarily be some kind of nuclear action, and not necessarily military action at all. But it might resort to political threats and other risky action which it would not feel inclined to undertake if it felt itself vulnerable to nuclear attack from the other super-Power, but which, if it once felt that it had achieved invulnerability, it might feel bold enough to undertake.
Those are the two main international consequences which might arise from a decision by either of the two Powers to go ahead with the development of an anti-ballistic missile system. And that goes without saying that if one of the two Powers is to do it, it is certain that the other will do it. However, the main danger on which I wish to concentrate is a third one, and it applies not to the two super Powers themselves but to the other principal Powers involved. It goes without saying that, as the order of expense involved in the construction of such a system is of the sort I have described, it is virtually certain that no other Power on earth, certainly at the present time, will be able to follow suit. Certainly no single European Power would be able to do it.
This has the effect that a development of this kind, far more even than any other development of expensive modern military technology—and almost any such development has this effect to some extent—will have the effect of increasing the military gap between the super-Powers and all other Powers. This is an undesirable development not simply because of narrow nationalism on the part of the lesser Powers but because it means that they become far more subject to threat from the super-Powers than they would otherwise be. It is often observed that the United States is unlikely ever to risk the use of nuclear weapons, or even to appear to the other side to be likely to do so, for the sake of European interests.
If a situation were to arise in which both the main super-Powers had themselves developed anti-ballistic missile systems, the European Powers might well be faced with a choice between either becoming totally dependent on some United States system—for example, they might ask the United States to establish its own anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe, thus becoming dependent on the United States in a way which they are not today—or becoming totally subject to threat and intimidation from the Soviet Union or any other nuclear Power which might arise. This in itself would be an important destabalising factor.
It is clear, therefore, that this development concerns the non-super-Powers far more than it does the super-Powers themselves. It could even be argued that the super-Powers have a certain common interest in the development precisely because it would increase their power in relation to every other Power. However, although the non-super-Powers have the main interest in preventing this development, they have so far had no say in the discussions which have gone on on the subject. I have put down several Questions in the House, and the replies I have had so far give the impression that our own Government are perfectly prepared to see discussions take place exclusively between the United States and the Soviet Union, being ready simply to stand on the sidelines and, perhaps, give an occasional cheer. If that is the Government's view, I regard it as extremely shortsighted. I have sought to show that this is a development which is likely to affect us and any other Power which is not a super-Power, which could not of itself compete in this field, far more than the two super-Powers themselves. We have, therefore, a much greater interest in taking part in any negotiations which take place.
In fact, when the opening of discussions was announced at the beginning of March this year, President Johnson explicitly said at a Press conference that other Powers would be, or might be, invited to take part. One would, therefore, have expected the British Government and, perhaps other Governments to press that they should participate. Although the opening of negotiations has been announced, I understand that practically no meaningful discussions have yet

taken place, but what is known from the announcement itself is that discussions will cover not merely defensive missiles, but offensive missiles as well. This is a logical development.
It has been obvious to many people for quite a time that one of the reasons why the Soviet Union sees an advantage in the development of an anti-ballistic missile system is precisely that in this way she feels that she may be able to redress the balance of advantage which the United States posseses in its overwhelming superiority in offensive missiles. Not only does the United States possess a superiority of something like three to one, but it has announced on many occasions that it intends to retain such a superiority.
In the circumstances, it is not altogether surprising that the Soviet Union should have decided that the only recourse for her to meet that situation is to develop some sort of anti-ballistic missile system. This, in addition, accords with the military tradition of the Sovet Union of being more interested in a defensive system than an offensive system, and in defensive means of defence rather than offensive means of defence.
The fact that the discussions will cover offensive as well as defensive missiles only increases the direct and immediate interest of this country in the result of these negotiations. We are now the only other Power in the world which has an offensive missile weapon capacity of the strategic type, and I would have thought that these negotiations could scarcely be conducted without some reference to our residual strategic capacity. For all these reasons, it seems to me of vital importance that Britain should be closely and directly represented in these negotiations, and I very much hope that the Government will not only seek to acquire such representation in the discussions but will openly announce their intention to do so in the House at the earliest possible moment.
There is one final reason why it is of such importance that some such attempt as this should be made at the earliest moment: this is that these discussions are of the highest relevance to any replacement that may be sought for our existing Polaris missiles. It is fairly well known that the Polaris missile is already virtually


obsolescent and, equally, that the United States are now seeking to replace them with Poseidon missiles which have the advantage that they can carry multiple warheads and penetration devices which will enable them to penetrate any antiballistic missile system which may be established.
The Polaris missile has none of these advantages, so that if there is a decision to go ahead with the development of anti-ballistic missile sytems our Polaris missiles will become virtually worthless. That means that there will be increasing pressure from some quarters for the development of a replacement to provide the same kind of advantage that the Poseidon missiles have for the United States.
Virtually the only way in which this could be done is by some division of labour with France, by which we, being relatively more advanced in our technology in the development of submarines and warheads, could concentrate on that aspect of development, while the French could concentrate on the development of the missile, in which they are relatively more advanced. This would not necessarily represent the development of some kind of European deterrent, about which some people understandably have great apprehensions, because it would be possible for a weapon produced as a result of this kind of co-operation to remain totally under the undivided national control of the two countries. This would not be very different from the co-operation that already takes place between ourselves and France in the manufacture of aircraft and other modern weapons.
For these reasons, I do not feel that there is any strong political objection to a development of this kind, but it would have the largest possible implications for the future of this country and would be a development in respect of which one would expect there to be much more discussion than there has been so far. It is extraordinary that the development of an anti-ballistic missile system is a subject on which, as far as I know, there has never been any discussion in the House—except for the Questions to which I have referred, although it is now moving into a very critical phase, in which a decision one way or the other—and the probability is that it will be a decision that is dis-

advantageous to us—is likely to be made in the near future.

Mr. Frank Hooley: My hon. Friend suggests that this country should participate in the discussions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. Does he think that France and China should also have the right to participate, or does he think that it should be a trio?

Mr. Luard: I would think at first simply a trio, because we are the only Power at present in a comparable position with the United States and Soviet Union, as we have an existing strategic nuclear capacity which neither China nor France has. Certainly, when they are equal in development in future, one would expect and hope that they would be represented, because it is equally important that France—although it could hardly undertake this development alone—and China, which might in the near future, should be represented in talks of this kind.
Even Mr. McNamara, who up to now has bravely resisted the strong pressures in the United States Senate and elsewhere to go ahead with the development of the Nike X system, has now said that it is possible that the United States will decide to go ahead with a so-called "thin" system, a much smaller system which would be a valuable defence against the primitive Chinese missiles during the next ten years. But in practice it may then be difficult to distinguish between a thin and a thick or full-scale system.
If the United States goes ahead with this, preparations which have already been taken in the Soviet Union near Moscow and elsewhere are likely to he intensified. This is a critical situation and it is important that one of the non-nuclear Powers which has a close and immediate interest in preventing this development should be represented in the present talks. I hope that the Minister of State will today be able to announce that some such effort will be made by Her Majesty's Government.

4.17 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I welcome the opportunity afforded by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) for a brief discussion on anti-ballistic missile defence, which as


he says is vital, and I have no doubt that the House will return to it, although this is our first debate on the subject. As my hon. Friend said, interest and concern about the possible deployment of these weapons has been given new point and urgency by the recent Chinese hydrogen bomb test.
The Government have for some time been concerned about the disturbing possibilities which we believe were presented by the development of A.B.M. systems. No one can forecast the consequences of such deployment, but we have feared that a new and costly dimension would be added to the nuclear arms race by the competition to acquire these weapons and that each side would seek to build up its offensive nuclear force to overcome the A.B.M. defence. In this way, disturbing new uncertainties would be introduced into international affairs and the East-West military balance.
In such a situation, our hopes for making progress on measures of arms control and disarmament—particularly on such key aspects as a comprehensive test ban and curbing the nuclear arms race—would face new difficulties, and the repercussions might well be felt even more widely. So my hon. Friend will agree, I think, that there is no difference between us about the analysis of the importance and seriousness of the situation posed by the development of the antiballistic missiles.
Ministers have drawn attention to these dangers on several occasions in the last year in public speeches and at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva. We have also discussed these matters with both the United States and Soviet Governments and have explained our misgivings in some detail. We might claim, I think, that we were active and alerted to these problems as early as any of the Governments concerned.
I now turn to the deployment of these weapons. First, it has been public knowledge for some months that the Soviet Union has been undertaking certain limited A.B.M. deployment activities. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the information which has appeared in the Press. The United States Government has declined to follow suit, and has de-

ployed no A.B.Ms. In his Budget Message to Congress at the beginning of the year, President Johnson explained the American position. He said that no action would be taken at this time to deploy an A.B.M. system, although research and development were continuing. He also said that he was seeking discussions with the Soviet Union on limiting A.B.M. deployment.
This brings me to the key question of how progress can best be made towards an international understanding on these weapons. We must start by recognising that the United States and the Soviet Union carry a very special responsibility in regard to nuclear weapons. The offensive nuclear forces which they maintain constitute the backbone of the alliance on either side. These two countries are consequently in a class of their own.
Moreover, the United States and the Soviet Union are the only Powers developing, or at present capable of developing, A.B.Ms. We consequently warmly welcomed President Johnson's announcement early in March that the Soviet Union had agreed to discuss with the United States the means of limiting the arms race in offensive and defensive nuclear missiles. This was an important development for it indicated a willingness on the part of both super-Powers to consider moving towards an understanding covering the whole field of strategic nuclear weapons and offensive nuclear delivery vehicles, as well as the A.B.Ms. with which we are particularly concerned this afternoon.
Although it was made clear in that announcement that the United States Government would discuss their attitude towards these matters with her allies, I understand that there was no suggestion that the talks to be set up with the Soviet Union should be on a wider basis. With respect to the views of my hon. Friend, I think that it would be difficult to have a widening of the two super-Powers meeting initially without it being on a wider basis than he envisaged—ourselves and the other two super-Powers. We cannot lay down how these super-Powers concerned with the problem now will discuss it between themselves.

Mr. Luard: Would my right hon. Friend agree that at the very least some participation by the United Kingdom, either on a formal or informal basis, might


have the effect of inducing these Powers to show greater urgency in the attention they give to the problem than they seem to have done so far? The announcement was made at the beginning of March and I understand that there have been no effective negotiations since then. Within the past week or two Mr. McNamara has made the statement that America may be going ahead with a "thin" system. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the other Powers have an important rôle in inducing a sense of urgency in tackling the matter?

Mr. Mulley: Not only have they a rôle to play, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that we are discharging our responsibility in that direction by our talks which I have mentioned with both Powers. As a former member of the Foreign Service and a great student of international affairs, my hon. Friend will realise that the important question is to get the decision right at the end and not the Press conferences which are held while discussion is going on. If we make public statements every time we talk to either an American or Russian statesman or official about the subject matter of the discussion, any kind of talk with any kind of person would quickly come to an end. I think that he will realise that when we make representations, as we have, and have discussions about the urgency of the matter with both Governments they must be confidential on both sides, for otherwise this kind of international discussion will not be possible at all.

Mr. Hooley: Have we initiated any discussions with Powers other than the two super-Powers on this subject?

Mr. Mulley: It has been raised many times in Geneva, but our main representations in recent months have been to the Governments of the United States and Soviet Union. In our view, the best prospects for progress must lie in direct exchanges between the two Governments particularly concerned, although we can and do put forward our views. We have been kept informed by the United States Government of their thinking on these matters, and various aspects of the question have already been discussed in detail within the N.A.T.O Alliance, particularly in the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 12th

April. My hon. Friend will know that it was referred to in the communiqué issued after that meeting; and, as I have said, the discussions which we have must be on a confidential basis.
As to solutions to the A.B.M. problem, what could we do, within the arms control context? I recall that one of the Government's main objectives in the disarmament negotiations is to work towards agreement on measures of real disarmament, particularly in the crucial category of nuclear weapons. Important proposals have been put forward. For example, President Johnson's proposal for a freeze on the numbers and characteristics of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, both offensive and defensive, could provide a starting point, and an effective means of dealing with the dangers that would be presented by the deployment of A.B.M.s.
As my hon. Friend said, it is not merely a problem of the A.B.M.s themselves. Their coming along may, in all probability, start a new spiral of the existing nuclear offensive weapons on both sides. The Americans have made it clear that if progress could be made with the freeze, they would be prepared to explore the possibility of significant reductions in these weapons. Initially, as I said, we hope that the United States and Soviet Union will be able to work towards an understanding along these lines. Clearly, any such understanding would bring in other countries, including ourselves, as progress was made, but we think that, in the first instance, the procedures and talks must be on that basis.
I am glad that my hon. Friend made it clear—and I certainly endorse his remarks—that there is an enormous responsibiltiy on these two Powers to avoid a further serious upward twist in the awns spiral, with all that that implies to prospects of better international understanding. Their responsibility is extremely heavy. On the other hand, if they are successful, we should then have reached a real turning point in the disarmament negotiations.
To be realistic, we must recognise that progress in any part of the disarmament sphere has been extremely disappointing. It is four years since the partial test ban treaty. I came back yesterday from Geneva, where I hope and believe that


there is a chance of getting a non-proliferation treaty; but it will depend on the next weeks. The next step, as I strongly urged in my speech yesterday, is to get the Soviet Union and the United States Governments to table their joint draft proposals; and if we cannot make progress in this limited field of non-proliferation, which has been examined so thoroughly for such a long time, then, while I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this subject to the attention of the House, he will realise that, with all the good will in the world, Her Majesty's Government cannot achieve in the A.B.M. field the sort of progress he wants.
The urgent thing is to get a nonproliferation treaty if we can. This matter was given priority by the United

Nations First Committee last October and certainly it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in these negotiations in Geneva, to do all we can to resolve the many considerable problems that remain.
Unless we get the draft treaty from the American and Russian co-Chairmen in the next weeks, I think that even this prospect may dim. Unless we get nonproliferation—not only for its own sake, although that is important, but also as a step in the direction in which we want to go—and unless we make this progress this year, I see future progress in this sphere being more and more difficult.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.